Petrol Price Increase: Motion.

Mr. Barrett

I move:

That Dáil Éireann demands the withdrawal of the increase in the price of petrol imposed by the Government on 4th December, 1974.

The performance in this House last Wednesday evening was, in our opinion, the greatest example we have ever seen of conceit, deceit, confusion and disarray on the part of the Government and a complete ignoring of ordinary democratic principles. We on this side of the House, on every possible occasion since October, 1973, have endeavoured to awaken the Government to the existence of and the consequences of an energy problem. Over this entire period we have failed to see any indication whatever that the Government understood the problem. As a result of last week's events, we have more reason than ever to believe that the Government are incapable of understanding the problem with which they are faced.

Last Wednesday night in this House was a scandal and, conceding this debate today, does nothing to lessen that scandal. For months now various Ministers have reacted to criticism in a touchy and crotchety manner and none more so than the Minister for Finance who persistently reacts with snide selective statements inside and outside the House. An example of this was the use of statistics relating to sales and registrations of particular types of large vehicles and the growth of the registration of these vehicles since 1967. The Minister might as well be quoting statistics proving that the existence of stage coaches was no longer necessary because it would be as irrelevant as this statement. I cannot see how any self-respecting keeper of the national purse, as the Minister for Finance is, could continue in that office after the display of ignorance shown by his statement that petrol is carrying 24p per gallon in taxation when it is sold to external residents. How that affects our balance of payments in the way the Minister has suggested I do not know.

If one looks at the correspondence columns of any of the national newspapers one will see that the ordinary man in the street has now come to realise that the Minister for Finance is not able to tell a credit from a debit. We should dismiss the whole episode with contempt but, unfortunately, we cannot do that because we are still stuck with the legacy of 15p per gallon added to the price of petrol. This still exists and we cannot go away from that. We have put down our motion in order to get rid of this savage increase imposed by the Minister. I now propose to prove that there is deceit involved.

The Minister has the total cost of all oil imports and products at his disposal and he knows that it is deceitful to use the selective comparison of petrol prices here with those existing in other countries without also taking into consideration the charges which consumers of all oil products are obliged to pay. It is deceitful also to say that the petrol element in our oil imports bill has increased to a greater extent than other oil products imported. The increase, for example, of from £7 million to somewhere between £30 million and £40 million for the ESB alone this year in the cost of heavy fuel oil shows the extent to which this deceit has gone and how deceitful the whole operation has been.

Petrol represents less than 20 per cent of the volume of oil products consumed. Heavy fuel oil represents 45 per cent and of this the ESB consume nearly half. It is a deceit to say that it is expected to accrue £27½ million based on a hypothesis which, having regard to Irish conditions, will not be sustainable. The Minister is just slavishly following his counterpart in Britain without having regard to the difference in infrastructure between Britain and Ireland. This is something which the Minister has failed to consider. It is also deceitful of the Minister to say that his action will encourage the use of public transport. Great Britain, for example, has a population density more than five times greater than the population denisty here. It is, therefore, impossible, unless the Minister intends to increase the CIE deficit about which we heard so much last week to more than £30 million in order to make public transport competitive with private transport. Because of the infrastructure of our country this would be necessary.

It follows that the action of the Minister will affect the rural areas to a greater degree than the people of the bigger cities. Where will the regional policy go from here and where will it lead us? It is also a deceit to use statistics on a global basis to show that a negligible effect on the cost of living will result. The real effect will probably be 2½ to 3 per cent on the cost of living. Taken in relation to the wages, people will have to spend an extra £1 per week at least for essential travelling expenses to and from their work. A man earning £40 per week is compelled to pay £1 extra per week for his transport to work because of the rise in the cost of petrol.

It is also deceitful to suggest that by punishing the consuming public it is possible to persuade those who are punished that it is only being done for their own good. The Minister should at least be charitable and say that this was all done in ignorance but that is not so. It is also deceitful to extract such an amount of taxation in such an undemocratic fashion. The Minister probably hopes that with the use of the cynical public relations machine used by the Government that the people will forget what has happened with the result that he will avoid the need for accountability in the forthcoming budget. We do not intend to forget and I feel confident that the people have no notion of forgetting it.

I do not believe it is possible that the Minister could have deceived himself to this extent. The Minister should tell us the real reason for his action and give the House an exact estimate of the revenue he expects from this action. My investigations suggest that the Minister will gather between £33 million and £37 million from this action. I have shown that the reasons given by the Minister for this action cannot be sustained. The sales to motorists from Northern Ireland are a benefit to our balance of payments and everybody appreciates this fact. I do not believe the Minister has any means of providing public transport at competitive costs. Because of the essential nature of most of the motoring the Minister will not achieve by this means any reduction in petrol consumption. A car is an essential part of our life; it is essential to the lower paid people.

Many people in my constituency, Clare, have no option but to travel 30 miles to and from work daily by car. This is not peculiar to Clare alone. It happens in all the western counties and, indeed, in counties like Meath which is represented by the Minister for Local Government. How the Minister is going to provide public transport on a scale mentioned in his statement is beyond the comprehension of everybody. The Minister has also ignored the effect his action will have on goods delivery. The Minister mistakenly said that most goods vehicles use diesel but it is an undeniable fact that goods vehicles up to two ton are practically all petrol driven.

The Minister has added to the general confusion and lack of confidence by such a desperate measure taken for the sake, to use his own words, of saving in the region of £3 million in our balance of payments on our total oil import figures. The Minister for Finance, and the Minister for Transport and Power, know that there are other and far more beneficial means available to them. The Minister for Finance, and his colleagues, spoke about studies and reports of various committees but the sad fact is that nothing has happened to materially change the fundamental weakness in our energy structure. I challenge the Minister to produce evidence that it is otherwise. Undoubtedly, there is a saving to be achieved by more efficient maintenance of equipment and, in some cases, new installations but it is time the Minister and his colleagues in Government did something about the establishment of a refinery here, which could yield us more benefit than any other step—I would say, conservatively, £20 million per annum on our balance of payments. In one stroke this would certainly save us more than seven times what the Minister hopes to save by the imposition of the 15p per gallon of petrol announced last week. It is now 15 months since the Minister's colfidenc leagues first mentioned this. What has happened since? Absolutely nothing. What have the Government done in the last 14 or 15 months to insist on the establishment of a refinery in this country? We do not need a huge complex of a refinery. All that is required is a refinery on the lines of Whitegate, but much more modern in every way. Whitegate is refining already approximately 50 per cent of our oil consumption. If such were done, then the Minister for Industry and Commerce would be in a position at least to regulate the price of all oil products in this country—oil products right across the board—and would be in a position to save us more than £20 million per annum. The Minister talks about £2 million to £3 million to be reaped from his savage increase announced last week.

In this time of emergency it is a national scandal that the report commissioned long ago from An Foras Forbartha on the siting of an oil refinery should be delayed. There is no sign of this report. In the climate of emergency with regard to oil in which we have been living for the past 14 or 15 months it is a real scandal that this report has not appeared. Could the Minister for Local Government not do something to expedite its production? Where is this report? In the Minister's own constituency there are thousands of constituents suffering from the lack of action by a section of his Department in regard to the production of that report. We want to know when we can expect this report.

The Minister has said that the whole oil energy question constitutes a grave problem. How does the Minister propose tackling this problem? How does he hope to gain control over it if he does not tackle it at the very roots and get away from the total dependence, which his colleagues admitted last year, of this nation on the multinational oil companies. It is possible so to do. The first essential is the erection of a new oil refinery. It is essential now and would be even more essential in the future for the oil resources we hope will be yielded from our south coast. But we are already 14 or 15 months behind. It takes three years from the erection of an oil refinery to have it in production. In case the Minister is interested in cost, the cost of the one about which I speak would not exceed £80 million. Bearing in mind the total affect it would have on our energy policy, the financing of such a refinery should not present great difficulties. It could involve also some of the semi-State bodies totally dependent on oil, such as the ESB and Aer Lingus.

But at present, even without such a refinery, it would be possible to save at least £20 million on our balance of payments. Is the Minister aware that at present, on the Gulf, it is possible to purchase crude oil at 60 dollars per ton? This is a fact. I am even exaggerating a little, for the simple reason that Thailand is at present buying that crude oil at 54 dollars per ton. The cost of freight to a European port would be 14 dollars per ton. Let me assure the Minister that there is no difficulty in arranging this freight because oil tankers are probably easier to charter at present than the hiring of a taxi in the city of Dublin. Fourteen dollars is the cost to a west European port, and I am not talking about Milford Haven or any such port. Refining, insurance and shipment of the product to Dublin port from a European port would cost a total of six dollars per ton, giving a total of 80 dollars per ton at the tank in Dublin. At present the average price of oil, ex-tank at Dublin port, is in excess of 100 dollars per ton. I have illustrated for the Minister a way in which the same products could be produced at a price of 80 dollars and I am prepared to back up those figures with anybody at any time.

The Minister might ask the question: why bring it to a European port? It can be refined on the Continent of Europe for the amount I have quoted. I would even go so far as to say that, if the Minister or his colleagues are not capable of doing it, I would be prepared to stick out my own neck and say that I would be prepared to make the arrangements to prove that I am not merely talking off the top of my head about the whole matter. That is one way in which the problem could be tackled at its very roots. Other countries less developed than ours, such as Thailand, are able to do so. Why can we not go out? We are still entitled to regard ourselves as a favoured nation in the Arab world. But I doubt if that will continue for long when one examines some of the oil sharing agreements we have with countries that are at present putting in 10 per cent more armaments into Israel than they were doing this time last year. If the Minister has the will, there is no reason why he cannot tackle the problem at its very roots instead of having introduced the savage increase of last week and, undoubtedly, not for the reasons he gave in this House.

On the Minister's own admission it is a grave problem. But it is the responsibility of the Minister and of the Government to see to it that this grave situation will not be allowed persist. The Government have the facts. At least, if they have not, they should have. They are completely ignoring methods of correcting the situation and the country is entitled to know why. We are talking about a situation of national survival, at least that is the way the Minister presented it here last week. What we say is: act as a Government; stop the political pussy-footing, if you like, about oil refineries, about a minority of self-styled environmentalists or whatever one likes to call those people who, I believe, are not in the least concerned about the national good but who react in an emotional way with a total disregard for the scientific facts of the emergency facing our country at present.

Another matter mentioned is oil conservation. Were we on this side of the House presented with a genuine energy conservation plan we would support it. I was the first to mention this more than a year ago in several debates. But what we were presented with under this heading by the Minister last Wednesday has nothing whatever to do with energy conservation. In fact it is nothing more than a panic measure on the part of a Government whose credit appears to have run out completely, who undoubtedly need every penny they can lay their hands on before the sheriff moves in on them. The Minister had better tell the people of this House and of the country the truth and the real reasons for his action of last week. If I may summarise; energy conservation is a very worthy exercise. There is no doubt about that. I would suggest that energy cost is the primary problem. Leaving aside the building of an oil refinery we are putting before the Minister a way by which he can reduce costs by £20 million. The next step we can expect from the Minister is the reintroduction of those controls over the price of petrol which the Government dismantled on December 12th last. This will be an effort to prevent a follow-through from what is about to happen in Britain—a massive increase in the price of petrol and, perhaps, in other oil products also. Because of our price control structure having been dismantled, all the multi-national oil companies need do is give seven days notice to the Minister for Industry and Commerce of their intention to impose the same increases here as are expected in Britain.

Such notice is likely to be issued to the Minister before Christmas. It will hardly give any pleasure to the consumer to toast the health of the Minister for Finance and of the Government during the coming festive season. Instead of paying the present savage price for petrol we are likely to be paying much more in the new year. Surely such a situation could not help to reduce the cost of living. We are tied to the outer UK zone in respect of any price rises in oil products but if the Minister chooses to ignore the advice that is being given to him he can only be said to be acting in a criminally negligent manner in regard to the people's welfare. The reasons given by the Minister for imposing the extra 15p per gallon on petrol have been shown to be false. In those circumstances the Minister must suspend the relative order and, instead, must be prepared to tackle the problem. It is inevitable that there will be an increase in the prices of oil products in the UK in the immediate future. If the Minister was prepared to remove this extra 15p from the price of petrol and promote petrol sales along the Border to Northern Ireland motorists, I would have no hesitation in saying that such action would bring him in the £3 million he is hoping to get from this measure. It would be necessary to sell only four per cent of our petrol consumption to petrol filling stations along the Border in order to bring in the amount being sought by the Minister.

This increase was imposed in a manner that was deceitful and arrogant. It showed a complete lack of consideration for democratic principles. Our people must bear the burden of the Minister's savage and ill-thought-out action. The Minister must be aware that because of the social structure of our society there are people in some areas who must travel distances of up to 30 miles to and from their places of employment. For most of these people there would be no regular public transport service available. There could hardly be a regular public transport service for the thousands of people who are engaged on shift work. Such people are faced with the prospect either of giving up work or of having to meet this huge increase in the cost of petrol. Cars to these people mean jobs. In many cases the increased cost will mean as much as £2 per week more in transport costs. This is a grave imposition on any working man whose transport may already be costing him £5 or £6 per week. How are these people supposed to survive such an imposition especially at a time of such rapid inflation and at a time of total non-activity on the part of the Government not only in this sphere but in many other areas also?

Every reason put forward by the Minister for the increase has been disproved out of hand not only by commentators writing in our newspapers but also by those who write letters to the papers and by the ordinary people in the street. Our purpose in tabling this motion is to have the 15p per gallon increase removed. In this we cannot be said to be destructive because I have put forward ways and means by which the Minister can save—that is, if he has the will and the capability of so doing —at least more than £20 million per year in our balance of payments bill for oil and oil products alone.

Minister for Finance (Mr. R. Ryan)

I move the following amendment:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and to insert the following:

"endorses the action of the Government in increasing the tax on petrol to achieve greater economy in its use with a view to reducing the deficit in the balance of payments."

I must congratulate Deputy Barrett on the most severe and well-documented condemnation of Fianna Fáil energy policy that this House could ever experience. The Deputy has expressed condemnation of the fact that this country is in the hands of the multinational organisations who control our oil supplies as well as their storage and the retail outlets involved. That is the situation that Fianna Fáil bequeathed to us. They have asked us, overnight as it were, to provide all the technology and all the massive capital requirements not only at home but abroad to rectify this unfortunate situation. It is a situation that cannot be corrected overnight. On one occasion Deputy Barrett said that it would take three years to plan and build an oil refinery.

Mr. Barrett

To build an oil refinery.

Mr. R. Ryan

The Deputy might at least acknowledge that this Government have not been in office for as long as that and that in such a short time we could not make good all the omissions of our predecessors.

We need to recognise a very fundamental natural law, that our survival depends on our ability to adapt ourselves to changing circumstances. The changes in the global economic environment during the past year have been more drastic, more upsetting and will be more prolonged than perhaps anything experienced before by mankind. The economic upheavals caused by world wars, while acute in regions of conflict, have never been as extensive and as dramatic as have developed from the energy crisis. Nobody but a fool would think that habits, lifestyles and expectations could remain unaffected by what has occurred.

One of the troubles is that although people will accept that things cannot go on as they were, they are unwilling, either individually or collectively, to make the changes necessary as a result of the new circumstances. As a nation we cannot continue to operate as if £200 million every year was not being taken out of Ireland by the people who are producing and supplying oil. That is what is happening. It is a continuing massive haemorrhage on our economy and anything that can be done to stop that haemorrhage, even if the action taken is necessarily painful must be done. There is no use in Irishmen and women becoming cross with each other because of the difficulties that have been inflicted on our country by forces from outside. For our people to fall out with one another at this time of crisis would be like people in a house threatened by fire arguing with one another instead of taking steps to quench the flames. Our survival demands unprecedented co-operation within this nation and a readiness within the community to share the burden that has been inflicted on us. We must be prepared to forego improvements in our standard of living which, during recent years, we could have reasonably anticipated.

We are not living now in the global environment that existed in 1973 and there is no point in pretending otherwise. The economic interests of this country are inextricably linked with the outside world. No country can live in a vacuum. We are bound by a number of international treaty obligations not to impose import controls except in certain circumstances, and then only with the agreement of the international organisations concerned, such as, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the European Economic Community. Similar obligations may arise under recent proposals of the International Monetary Fund. We are pursuing with the organisations concerned, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce said today, the possibility of imposing import controls in certain sensitive areas which are most adversely affected by the present world trade trend.

The balance of payments deficit can, in certain circumstances only, justify the imposition of controls. A balance of payments deficit which was unnecessarily large because of our failure as a country to cut our consumption of petrol for private use and convenience would not be acceptable to any of these international organisations with which we have treaty obligations. Therefore, import controls for the specific purpose of protecting Irish jobs cannot be contemplated unless we are seen to take the same steps as other countries to reduce the consumption of unnecessary items like petrol for private convenience. Other countries in Europe have so far acknowledged that there is no means as efficient for reducing petrol consumption as the price mechanism. If any person doubts that, all he need do is read the remarks of every commentator in Britain in relation to the steps taken there yesterday. They all agree the price mechanism is the most effective method to reduce consumption.

Of course, no economic measure can be taken in isolation. Every economic step has side effects, many of them unpleasant. But there is no use in our getting angry about the inevitable side effects of a price increase. The impact of that on any individual can be reduced through that individual's decision to reduce his own consumption. Yet it is because we have left people that freedom of choice that we are being faulted.

What should we have done instead of using the price mechanism? Should we have imposed rationing? I would have thought the Opposition, having sought this debate, would have produced some wonderful solutions to our difficulties. So far all we have been told is to make up for 16 years of Fianna Fáil neglect by suddenly producing oil refineries and tankers and, apparently, going out and grabbing our own oil wells in the Middle East. Even if we had the capacity to do that, it could not be done overnight. Meanwhile we have to grapple with this problem if we are not to harm ourselves as individuals and as a community. We cannot continue to have an unwillingness to go without and yet complain about the price of having. That is just not on, and the sooner we acknowledge it the better.

The obvious course for a developing nation such as ourselves is to borrow abroad to meet the oil deficit, and we shall as a Government be borrowing abroad in the short term to cover the loss to our economy created by this world problem. This is in accordance with all the advice available to us from every responsible international and, indeed, national organisation. But borrowing at any time requires that the borrower be thrifty and be seen to be thrifty. Our fellow members of the European Economic Community and lenders of money to this country, would look askance at us if we continued to sell precious petrol for private convenience use at 50p a gallon. There would be serious doubts about our understanding of the economic position of the world if we failed to bring our petrol price more in line with that which obtains in every other European country.

We have a right of access as a nation to certain funds, for example, the ordinary borrowing rights of the International Monetary Fund, and, in certain circumstances, to the recently established oil facility borrowing. The European Community propose to apply to the Arab oil producing countries for a loan of up to $3 billion to be used to assist member countries of the EEC to overcome their oil deficits. Even now there is no guarantee that such a loan will be granted to Europe. There is also uncertainty as to the terms on which the money lent to Europe would be relent by the Community to member countries. However, one thing is certain. The Community will expect any country looking for a loan from that quarter to take and be seen to be taking such effective action as is open to it to reduce the consumption of oil.

Deputy Barrett's recommendation to us today was not to reduce the consumption of oil but to go out into the world to locate oil which apparently he knows is available at bargain prices, even though nobody else is able to get it. For as far ahead as it is possible to foresee this country will require increasing quantities of oil from abroad in order to provide vital energy for our industrial development. While we are already menaced by the extent of the oil deficit, we still need to increase our imports of oil for productive purposes in order to produce the goods to be sold abroad to pay for our imports. Any reduction therefore in unnecessary oil use, any reduction in oil waste, any conservation of energy, is an absolute necessity no matter how small it may be or no matter how unpleasant it is to achieve.

The suggestion has been made that the reduction in oil imports effected by the price mechanism which we propose would amount to only £3 million per year. I want to refute that. I understand that Deputy Colley expressed this view. I am sure it will be some consolation to him to know he is wrong. He always has my pity when he is discussing statistics because he always puts his foot in it.

Mr. Colley

According to the Minister.

Mr. R. Ryan

Sometimes he goes into it with both feet up to his "oxters". Here are the correct figures. At a very conservative estimate the tax increase will mean a saving in the balance of payments of about £7 million in 1975. As a result of the increase in petrol prices, consumption in 1975 will be about 10 per cent less than it otherwise would have been. At present the Whitegate refinery supplies about two-thirds of our domestic requirements of petrol, and the remaining one-third is imported direct. In calculating the effect on the balance of payments of the drop in consumption in 1975, account must be taken of the fact, first, that suppliers will continue to get from Whitegate all that Whitegate can produce and, secondly, that a cut-back in consumption will bear wholly on direct imports of refined petrol.

Mr. Blaney

It mesmerises me, just as last Wednesday's proceedings mesmerises me.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

In seconding the motion proposed by my colleague, Deputy Barrett, I, first of all, want to refer to the insincerity the Minister displayed in his statement to this House last week, which he tried to justify in a most arrogant and superficial manner again today. I, like him, am sorry that the television cameras were not in this House last week. The people would have seen how he leered across the House with derision as he imposed, in a most undemocratic way, hitherto unheard of taxation by extorting £27½ million from the ordinary people.

It is also significant that in his concluding remarks today the Minister read an unsigned letter to the House. This could be from a very close supporter of the Minister. If that is so, I ask him to ignore this type of letter, look to the people of Ireland, see their plight and realise that this insincerity of his is no longer acceptable to them.

Last week saw a big public relations act, a field in which the Government are most successful, but public relations is not a policy for oil conservation or any other facet of Government. It is a very expensive technique used professionally for the ordinary taxpayers of Ireland. The people wondered what all the fuss was about, why Ministers were told to stay at home—which is most unusual nowadays—and why the European Parliamentarians were recalled from abroad. Naturally, some constructive policy was expected from the Government but we were disappointed. There was nothing but the now infamous speech of the Minister for Finance. It was a well-staged drama in which he was the central figure. There was a huge build-up but there was only one reason for the statement—to raise finance in order to continue the reign of the Coalition for another short period and to prolong the agony of the Irish people by raising £27.5 million. It was an arrogant, pompous and overbearing performance. It was a case where television would have been useful so that the people of Ireland could have seen it. It reminds one of the landlord of the last century telling his tenants that he was increasing the rents and not worrying whether they were in a position to pay. Whether they could afford it did not matter.

But the Minister must realise that all this arrogance, increasing daily, the sneering across the House at a party elected as the majority party in the last election who had a huge vote of nearly 700,000 people which I can assert would be far greater if the election were held now, cannot pass unnoticed. I can well understand Fine Gael supporters writing to the Minister in such terms because they are drawn mainly from the belted earls and the merchant princes, the monied classes generally and their descendants. Money is no problem to them. They can carry the cost at any price. But what of the Labour supporters? Is there any significance in the fact that Labour Members have been conspiciously absent this evening? Are the Labour Members aware of the views of their rapidly diminishing supporters? Are they aware of the impositions on them?

The Minister has said that no constructive policy was put forward by us. Deputy Barrett in his usual construcficanc tive way, and obviously with great care, suggested ways and means around the present difficulty. Since the energy crisis began over 14 months ago the Government have shown that they have absolutely no comprehensive policy to tackle what we are so often told is a serious situation. The Minister said he was hitting the section of the community that it would least hurt. It is no secret — indeed, it is well established now that—that the reason this proposal was introduced in such a manner last week and the debate allowed this week followed by a vote, was to give the Government Whip the opportunity, by various means, of whipping in the Labour Members of the Government whom he knew a week ago — or rather less — would have voted against the measure. I shall be disappointed if a Labour Member goes through the lobby to support this proposal. If he does, he will have to answer to his supporters sooner rather than later for any ill effects this decision will have — and they will be many.

It is no wonder their supporters are diminishing. In the north-east Cork by-election one could say that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs had more telephone kiosks in the area than the party had voters. The Labour Party and particularly ex-Ministers have really abandoned the cause of the working people. No wonder their supporters are saying, as was said about the English poet laureate who took the position that was boycotted that it was "all for a handful of silver they left us".

I represent a county with a long association with the motor manufacturing and assembly industry and all its ancillaries. I am aware of the importance of the employment content in that industry to the economic life of the community in Cork. Over the years the company to which I refer has grown; its product has been good and the conditions of the staff have been excellent. If the Minister and those who go into the lobby with him tonight think that the present position will not have the effect of reducing employment in that city, there is something wrong with their advisers or with their reading of the situation. If the Labour Members support this measure and it subsequently means a loss of even one job, they are no longer fit to call themselves a Labour Party. In an economy already in ruins through mismanagement the Minister today tried to vindicate the childish reasons given by him a week ago. To put it mildly, it was bluff, deceit or trick-o'-the-loopery, to borrow a phrase used by a colleague of his, and despite what is said there was one reason and one purpose for that statement: like old Mother Hubbard's cupboard the coffers were bare and the Minister had to get money somewhere quickly.

There was another reason which was kept very quiet until after this announcement, the fact that everybody knew that the Minister for Industry and Commerce within a very short time would have on his table an application for an increase from the oil companies. That application was about to be presented so the Minister decided that in order to gain the maximum amount of revenue for a Government that had exhausted its resources, he had to move quickly. That was the reason for last week's announcement. It could not wait until budget time for that reason.

We understand we are faced with a further increase and the Minister in his statement laid much emphasis on the fact that there was a wastage of petrol because of its cheapness. How ridiculous can a man in such a responsible position be when he makes such a statement? By our Irish standards and to our people petrol was expensive. We do not measure it against world standards or against its price in other countries. We measure it against our own economic situation and our purchasing ability and in those terms it was a very dear commodity prior to the tax imposition last Wednesday. It is obvious it was an effort to extend further the period in office of a Government already doddering, on the brink of collapse, with many internal dissensions, prolonging the agony of the people under their rule.

An economics expert on RTE told the people last Wednesday night that the effect on the economy would be approximately two-thirds of 1 per cent. I should like him to substantiate that figure. One suspects that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs may have been the expert referred to. Everyone is affected by the increase. I am not referring to what the Minister called "the unnecessary motoring". The manufacturing and service industries, the delivery service, the farming community and the workers are affected.

Essential commodities such as bread, butter, tea, sugar, milk, fruit, vegetables, meat and sausages are delivered generally by petrol delivery vans. Nobody can deny that but I have no doubt that the Minister for Finance will stand up and, in his arrogant way, tell us that they should change to diesel. However, firms cannot afford to do that in the present economic situation. I can tell the Minister of a small delivery firm who have four petrol-driven vans on the road and the increased cost to them will be about £2,500. That firm are making plans to take two of the vans off the road. What will become of the two men who will lose their jobs in this instance? Will the Labour Party tonight go into the lobby and vote that these two men lose their jobs? If they do, shame on them.

Commercial travellers and service representatives will be affected and, consequently, the cost of their commodities will be increased. The public health nurse and the housing inspector are absolutely dependent on a car to do their work. In my county many men are obliged to travel 20 or 30 miles to work and they will have to pay an extra £1 or £2 per week. Is the Minister prepared to allow these people an income tax rebate on the cars they use travelling to and from work? At the moment they are not entitled to such a rebate.

The Minister and the Government seem determined to disrupt the construction industry. Normally the big construction sites are not served by public transport mainly because of their location, the diverse times the workers start and finish their work and because of the scattered and wide area in which the people concerned live. Therefore, for most construction workers a car is an essential to get to their place of work. The Minister was not honest when he said he was imposing a penalty mainly on the people it would hurt the least. He should be honest and tell the people why he took his recent action. He should stop all the bluff and insincerity. We have had enough of that in the last two years and the people are longing for an opportunity to tell the Government what they think of their deceit, bluff and false promises.

For the farmer the car is an essential item. He is going through a very tough time but the Minister has tried to pretend that he will be in the category that will be the least hurt. I do not know how the Minister can substantiate that claim. At one stage last week one would think we should say thanks to the Minister for the courtesy he extended to the House in telling us about the increase. In fact, he seemed to think he was doing more than he need have done. Surely that is arrogance at the highest level.

How deeply did the Minister consider rationing or the two-tier system where at least essential services could be protected? Had he done that he could have imposed the higher charge on those who are motoring for pleasure or doing unnecessary motoring. Like the juggler with his hat, this afternoon the Minister came up with a completely new figure, one he was basing on a projected increase. However, on the Minister's figure last week we find we are talking about a sum of less than £3 million at a cost of at least £27½ million to the people. The Minister cannot get away from that.

Both the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce have said they were taking steps to see in what other way they could tackle the balance of payments. For example, textiles are being imported from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Portugal and Korea but until pressure was put on from this side of the House no effort was made by the Ministers to go to Brussels and see what might be done to prevent the dumping of textiles here. This dumping has had a serious effect on our employment situation. It has affected Blarney which is in my constituency and there are many other similar instances throughout the country. People in those areas could have been kept in employment had the Ministers at an earlier stage approached the problem of stopping the importation of textiles from the countries I have mentioned. We are told that the position is being examined at this stage; this is typical of the Government — taking too little action, entirely too late.

On the Minister's figures last week one could estimate that the increased cost of oil on our balance of payments represented £130 million, but when we consider the massive increase imposed by the Minister on petrol he qualifies as the greatest Arab of all. During the North-East Cork by-election he said at Midleton that if one could not afford petrol one should walk, that if one could not afford tea one should drink water. Again, that is typical of the arrogance of the Minister.

Has he recommended a reduction in the number of ministerial cars being driven? What about the excessive mileage being driven by them all over the country? I believe there was an all-out attack on County Tipperary last weekend. What county will it be next weekend? It is all for party functions and party meetings. This Government have no policy, they are a Government of absolute failure. They have used the petrol and oil price situation as an excuse for their own shortcomings. It has been constantly used. It is now being used again.

The Minister used the word "insincerity" several times today. Let him, for once, be sincere and tell the people that what is wrong is that he has not got the money and that he needs the money. A sum of £27,500,000 has been raised in the month of December. We have a budget coming up in January. Now that such exorbitant taxation has been imposed on the Irish people I presume we can look forward to a pleasant budget, to one that will help us, to one that will reduce taxation. I hope the Minister will think of the worker to whom I referred earlier and allow him an income tax rebate on the car he must use for his work. What is wrong with it if on a summer Sunday evening that worker can afford to take his wife and children for a spin? Is that living beyond his means — the phrase used by the Minister today?

I would ask the Labour Party about the factory shift worker? If he scrounges and saves over a considerable period to buy a car, is he living beyond his means? If he uses his car for work because public transport is not available at the times he comes and goes and if he uses it at weekends with his family is that living beyond his means?

The position of the private petrol retailers surely merits mention. This is a group of people who have, for the most part, been operating small filling stations. They have been long suffering under the strength of the multi-national oil companies. Now we have the situation that, while 38.19p out of 65p per gallon is being taken by the Minister for Finance, their portion is 4.28p. Their increased costs are not being taken into consideration. The Minister did not suggest giving them a couple of pennies last week. There are involved in that business, between proprietors and employees, approximately 4,000 people. I am not talking of the company stations. Because of the hardships imposed on those people over the years they deserve consideration by the Minister.

The Minister is probably the greatest fairy story teller of all time. After last week's performance and today's he would certainly rank with Hans Christian Andersen and the Grimm Brothers. I would ask him at this stage to realise the disastrous effect his action will have on the Irish economy. Fifty pence was too dear for ordinary people. There was no wastage. The Minister should stop his bluff. What was used for industry, for those working in industry, for the farming community, for the carrying on of the daily work of this country.

Historians will write in the future that in the 1970s there was a Coalition Government that had one thing in common with other Coalition Governments — they succeeded in halting and setting back the Irish economy. Just like the two previous Coalition Governments they blamed it on the Arabs and on world problems. The poor Arabs have taken their own share of the blame in this House. The Minister, who is the greatest Arab of them all, should realise the harm he is doing to the economy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has a minute left.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

It was said long ago that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. We in Ireland are now in the Dark Ages and our country is running into bankruptcy while the Minister for Finance is fiddling with the economy.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. P. Barry)

May I take Deputy Fitzgerald up on one point, more in the spirit of fun than criticism. He referred to some friend of his who had four vans. He said it would cost him an extra £2,500 a year to run the vans as a result of this increase. That is about £12.50 per van per week which would mean they would be using 80 gallons a week each, which would mean they would be doing 2,000 miles. In a five day week that would be about 400 miles a day. If they were doing about 40 m.p.h. it would mean they would be doing nothing but driving because it would take them 10 hours to do the driving.

Deputy Fitzgerald will have to cease interrupting.

Mr. P. Barry

This increase in the price of petrol must be seen in the context of the energy crisis as a whole and the problems which this crisis has created for Governments and peoples in all consuming countries. For many years prior to the crisis of 1973 we had become accustomed to and indeed based our economies on an abundant, very cheap form of energy — oil. This did not apply just to Ireland or to Europe but to all the developed countries of the world and indeed the underdeveloped nations. Except for some of the wiser heads who saw that this source of energy might run out in 30 years' time, we all looked to the oil producing countries of the Middle East for an unlimited supply of cheap energy to fuel our economy, to provide employment for our people, to upgrade our economies so that we would be able to provide for our people the social development which we all desire. In the last 12 or 14 months we have come to realise that we had allowed ourselves to get into a very vulnerable position.

The striking and dramatic expansion and the associated raising of living standards were to a great extent occasioned by the availability of cheap energy and cheap fuel, namely, oil. The result of this was that our economic activity and social progress became overdependent on this single primary source of energy. This was clearly demonstrated by the way in which our electricity generating programme came to depend on oil. In 1960, just 14 years ago, only 20 per cent of our electricity was oil generated. Today it is nearly 70 per cent oil generated. Had this trend continued — there are signs that the recession in growth experienced last winter is once more with us — the figure could have reached 80 per cent by the end of this decade. I do not think I need stress what a serious position that would be for us to find ourselves in. The last year has shown how essential it is to free ourselves from such a high and critical level of dependence on imported oil.

In examining the situation we have to recognise that the process must be a gradual one. The necessary steps towards the achievement of freeing ourselves from this critical dependence on imported fuel must be initiated as soon as possible. Moving away from dependence on oil will be a development within two frameworks. First, we have to consider the situation as a member of the two international bodies and what we can do inside our own nation to reduce our dependence on imported oil by exploring for and developing our own indigenous sources of energy, such as turf and water. Hydro-electric schemes account for about 10 per cent of our electricity at the moment. Turf accounts for about 24 per cent. We have a significant, but not a major, find of natural gas off the south coast. We must continue to intensify the development of native resources. That has been a feature of the energy policy of successive Governments. We must diversify our sources of energy and provide ourselves with adequate stocks against emergencies. That is very important. We must also ensure the most rational and economic use of available energy by conservation and the elimination of undue waste.

In developing future policies in this area we should recognise the great uncertainty about future development in the energy sphere. Developments of a political nature in the producing countries, possible finds of oil and the find of natural gas within our own jurisdiction may constitute a breakthrough in technology. While we cannot make use of solar or tidal energy now, we must keep in the back of our minds the fact that these are things that may affect any policy we have at present. Assumptions are made now on the basis of the best available information and forecasts may be invalidated by unforeseeable changes within a very short time; Fifteen months ago we were in a situation of abundant and cheap energy. That situation has totally changed. The world is now being driven to conserve all the energy there is. The price factor is an inhibiting factor on the use of energy. The world is being driven to explore and exploit every source of oil. In the technological sphere it has been driven to developing other sources of energy. Our plans for the future must, therefore, not be too rigid. They must be flexible enough to take account of all these things while, at the same time, being firm enough and providing guidance in conservation. We must work in co-operation with our partners in the EEC and, in the wider context, in the International Energy Agency to see we get for this country a reasonably assured long-term supply of the energy we need to provide for our economic development or economic expansion with the ultimate object of providing for social development.

The energy problem is international in its origin and in the effects it has had on the economies of the whole world. It was reported last week that there are now 6,500,000 unemployed in the United States of America. The economy of Japan, that giant amongst developing nations, has run into severe storms in the last 12 months. This applies to all countries in western Europe and this is very possibly brought home by the measures taken by the British Government yesterday to ensure the position will not become worse. The British Government expect to be self-sufficient in energy by 1980. We will not be in that position. Despite that expectation they still see the necessity for conserving their energy because of the effect on their balance of payments and because of the way in which people look to the balance of payments as an indication of the manner in which the economy is being run.

As a member of the European Communities we naturally look to the EEC as a forum for the development of co-operation in the energy field. During the acute oil crisis of last year our European partners tended to react on a national basis and this, of course, led to a diversity of approach to the problem. Since then a considerable effort has been made towards the establishment of a common energy policy for Europe. Last September at the council meeting of the Ministers for energy a resolution was adopted emphasising the urgent need for a Community energy policy, confirming their intention to draw up and implement such a policy. That council meeting adopted guidelines for a common policy, including the curtailment of demand and conservation through a reduction in the rate of growth in internal consumption by measures designed for the rational and economic use of energy. With regard to energy supply, the policy would be aimed at the improvement of security through the development of nuclear power, the use of hydro-carbons and solid fuel resources of the Community and development of diversified and reliable external supplies.

The council will be meeting again next week and at this meeting we will be adopting more specific policies and target figures in both these areas.

We envisage that at the meeting next Tuesday we will have before us a comprehensive resolution on the main elements of a Community policy. This will provide for the overall target of restriction on the growth of energy consumption. We will also be seeking to agree on a target figure for the reduction of Community dependence on imported energy. The level of dependence in 1973 was 63 per cent. Consideration will be given to the adoption of a target under which the degree of dependence will be reduced to 50 per cent, and possibly lower, by 1985.

I mention those figures because I want to bring out the point that what happened last year had to be reacted to immediately in the current situation not alone of a huge increase in cost but in the non-availability of as much oil as we wanted. I am stressing the year 1985 because I want to bring home to the House that, even though the situation in last winter is now behind us from the point of view of availability of supply, the cost factor is not behind us. This is something we will have to live with and be conscious of for many years to come. In England they hope to be self-sufficient in 1980. We will not be in that position.

We will have to look constantly at our uses of energy from the point of view of the ordinary person living in a house to the point of view of the major users of energy. The ESB are the major producer of energy but they are also the major user of fuel oil. Every single individual, every business, every Government agency, every farmer, every industrialist, every shopkeeper will have to look at our use of energy with a view to curtailing it as far as possible for many years to come. We are over the hump of a shortage of supply, but we are not over the hump of the effect of the energy crisis on our balance of payments, and its effect on the balance of payments of each individual within his own individual budget.

I have frequently quoted the figure of what this cost means to individuals. We reckon that it costs £130 million extra on our balance of payments. That means that £130 million of spending power is being transferred from this country to the oil producing nations. This works out at almost £50 per head of the population per annum. A £ a week purchasing power is taken out of the pocket of each individual and transferred. The purchasing power of a man and his wife and two children is being diminished by £4 a week because of the energy crisis. That crisis is still with us. We will have to fight it and contend with it, and we will see its effects on our standard of living for years to come.

We are not alone in this. We are not the only country so affected. Every nation in the world purchasing oil from the Middle Eastern countries is affected by this massive increase in prices and the standard of living in those countries and their purchasing power will be affected for years to come. Possibly as time goes on and this money comes out of the oil producing countries to purchase goods from various consumer countries, the position will come more into balance but, at the moment, this is the situation we have to face and contend with.

The EEC Council of Ministers are in support of the target of reducing our dependency on oil so far as possible in 1985. There have been a number of specific proposals concerning oil, natural gas, nuclear energy, electricity production and solid fuels. There will be a draft proposal for the rational utilisation of existing sources of energy and the achievement of conservation in energy use designed to achieve savings of up to 15 per cent by 1985. We have already started to work on that target. We have our obligations and our commitments and we also have support and co-operation from the EEC Community and the International Energy Agency. There are things we can do in co-operation with them inside our own country. What time did I start at?

Mr. G. Collins

Is the Minister running out of petrol? I would not blame him at 65p a gallon. He should feel embarrassed.

Mr. P. Barry

There are things we can and must do immediately to reduce our dependence on imported oils and to reduce the effect on our balance of payments. Recently we signed as a member of the International Energy Agency. This will give us protection should another crisis come. It will commit us to helping people who might be affected by a crisis. Below a certain cut-off point in their supply, below 7 per cent, we would have to come to their aid. The same benefit would apply to us. There are things we can do inside our own country which would help.

Mr. Brennan

Is this one of them?

Mr. P. Barry

We started on this last year. The Government gave the go ahead to the nuclear energy station. This is looking well into the future but it is something. It is part of our agreement with our EEC partners that a high proportion of electricity generation should be from nuclear energy by 1985. We have also given the go ahead to the ESB and Bord na Móna to co-operate in bringing into production extra areas of bog land to generate a higher percentage of our electricity from turf. The additional bog area will be about 40,000 acres which will produce annually about 133 million tons of milled peat, about 44,000 tons of sod peat and about 600,000 cubic metres of moss peat. The additional milled peat will be used to produce 80,000 tons of briquettes and to fuel new electricity capacity of about 160 megawatts.

As is already known, the Government have given approval for a nuclear power station. In principle, the Government have given authority to the ESB to go ahead and choose a site, but the final location of that site will not be in the hands of the ESB or the Nuclear Energy Board. Naturally, if the ESB express a preference for a certain site, and if the Nuclear Energy Board give the imprimatur to that, the Government will be concerned to see that, other considerations being equal, they will be facilitated. The primary responsibility for the location of the nuclear energy station will rest with the Government. This new station will provide an extra capacity of about 650 megawatts, constituting approximately 15 per cent of our electricity generating capacity and with a consequential reduction on our dependence on oil.

A further step in the achievement of a more balanced pattern of electricity production will be the provision of additional capacity based on the natural gas in the Kinsale field. It has been said frequently that generating electricity from natural gas is not the most efficient way of using that gas and I accept that, but in our situation where we are moving towards a figure of 80 per cent dependence on imported oil for electricity generation we will have to, in the interest of security of supply, divert some of this natural gas to the generation of electricity. At present Nítrigin Éireann and the ESB are negotiating with Marathon on the costs and when it will be available.

A number of people suggested the establishment of a national grid to pipe this gas from where it comes ashore on the Cork coast to Dublin, Limerick or Waterford. It would be more efficient, and there is no doubt that it would be the most efficient use for this gas, if it was used for cooking. Using gas in this manner would mean that we would be obtaining the highest thermal value from it. Against the cost of establishing such a grid must be weighed the benefit to the economy of an assured supply of electricity generated from the gas. Even though that would not be 100 per cent sure it still would add to our hydro, peat generation and, eventually, our nuclear generation. They should all be designed with the object of reducing our dependence on oil in the future.

I believe it would cost in the region of £18 million and £20 million to establish such a grid. If there is a further find of gas the Government will look very seriously at this. However, we would have to weigh against the cost of establishing the grid whether there would be, for the economy, better value in giving that amount of money to help establish industries nearer where the gas comes ashore. This is one of the points we would have to examine. We would have to find out which would benefit the economy more, the piping of it to Dublin and other industrial areas or using the gas locally and give the money to help establish industries to use the gas.

The Deputy will have an opportunity of contributing to the debate later and I will not interrupt him.

It is important that the arranging of the utilisation of natural gas and its transport and distribution should serve the national interest. In determining the allocation of a future find it may be necessary to set up a gas council with responsibility to advise the Government as to the best way of dealing with such finds. Such a council could also advise the Government on the various financial and economic implications that could be employed in the use of this gas.

I should now like to refer to the question of conservation. In the British Parliament last night a number of measures were introduced by the Secretary of State for Energy but I should like to inform the House of what we have been doing in this regard over the last 12 months. The British Minister referred to a loan scheme to finance energy saving investment in industry. The Department of Transport and Power have had for a number of years such a scheme in operation. Under this scheme 50 per cent of the cost of a fuel efficiency survey is paid to whoever engages consultants and the IDA give 25 per cent of the cost of re-equipment or building modification necessary to conserve fuel. This is 35 per cent in the designated areas. At present a loan scheme is being considered by an advisory committee set up in my Department to consider energy conservation. That committee will be meeting again this week to consider such a scheme.

I should now like to deal with the point made that motor spirits were being increased in price more heavily than other oil products. I find it hard to agree with that statement. In a situation where all our oil is imported we would be distorting the economic market by allowing industry buy fuel at cheaper prices than people using other sources of energy could do. I would like to see all sources of industry finding their economic level with the Government coming in at a later stage and reimbursing by grants of different sorts, those who find the costs of such fuels are more than they could bear. I am speaking of the whole range of activity but particularly of the domestic consumers. We should try to keep an eye on the balance of payments problem which we would have facing us.

I should now like to deal with the point raised by Deputy Fitzgerald concerning leakage across the Border. The leakage across the Border does not appear in any of our trade statistics. When we import oil it is recognised as being imported by Ireland and it appears in figures. If we export that in the normal way we export goods that is recognised as a balancing export on the other side of the ledger but if that petrol is purchased here and taken out in tanks of cars across the Border it does not appear and we get the worst of both worlds. This increase in the price of petrol is necessary for balance of payments purposes to stop a leakage across the Border but it is primarily necessary to conserve fuel and to bring home to people the extremely tight situation we find ourselves in about energy. It is necessary to bring home to people that they must conserve energy and cut down on the use of all energy sources, not just heavy oils, electricity or gas. We must cut down on our use of petrol which, as the Minister said last year, is one of the areas of discretionary spending. People can, without much inconvenience, cut down on the use of petrol and leave the fuel available for industry, a much more important point.

Mr. Brennan

I wish to apologise to the Minister for interrupting him. Obviously, he was embarrassed and labouring under great difficulty in trying to fill in the time. During his time the Minister refrained from making any reference to the motion which the Government have before the House. For the benefit of the Minister I shall read that motion:

endorses the action of the Government in increasing the tax on petrol to achieve greater economy in its use with a view to reducing the deficit in the balance of payments.

Obviously, the Minister forgot that there was a motion of that type on the Order Paper. Our motion is designed to give the Minister for Finance an opportunity of apologising to the people, and this House in particular for his action here, for the manner in which he took it last week and, if possible, to mend his hand in pulling back from the step he proposes taking.

It is questionable whether or not the Minister will do either of those things. He has already had an opportunity of apologising and he confronted the House with his usual arrogance. He has not made any reference to his intention to withdraw the motion which he used as a device for a mini-budget last week. The Minister was looking for an excuse and a device to find £25 million to £30 million revenue. Nobody is in any doubt whatever about that, least of all the Members of this House. The excuse he used was the balance of payments deficit. The device he used was the Imposition of Duties Order, which usage was unprecedented.

It was never used for that purpose in this House since it was introduced in 1957 but it was used in a threeminute speech to bring in a budget, to extract millions of pounds from the people and add to the revenue of a Government finding themselves at the eleventh hour in serious trouble and having to take drastic action to put £27 million into their coffers. It was despicable. Had it been done honestly it might not have created the reaction of outrage throughout the country it definitely has done. We are not using propaganda, nor can we be accused of so doing on this side of the House when we expose that action for what it was — a definite abuse of a simple piece of legislation to mislead people, without an opportunity for any discussion. It was despicable enough when the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs recently brought in a mini-budget, without even consulting the House, and extracted several million pounds from the pockets of the people without any explanation of what will be done with the money or why it had to be found.

The balance of payments deficit is not really alarming the Government nor, indeed, is it alarming this country. We are all sufficiently familiar with the conflicting reports of the Central Bank and the Economic and Social Research Institute issued at the end of last month and diametrically opposed in their suggestions with regard to the economy. Whereas the Central Bank points to the dangers of a growing deficit in the balance of payments, the Economic and Social Research Institute spells out in very simple terms that it is nothing whatever to be alarmed about and should in no way influence the Government in whatever action they might take to rectify the present situation. The Economic and Social Research Institute point out — and I suppose they have a right to have their case respected — that a balance of payments deficit is bad only to the extent to which it results in the inflow or outflow of capital, or how it influences the flow of capital and, since our external assets have increased by £45 million in the first nine months of this year, there is no reason to worry whatever about any bad effects on the balance of payments deficit. They point out that the thing to worry about — and here I am with them — is the resultant unemployment.

Then, if the Government are to prove anything as a result of the action taken last week by the Minister for Finance, they will have to show that that has some bearing on future employment problems. Against the background of over 80,000 unemployed, against the background of a mere 1 per cent increase — possibly 1¼ per cent — in growth rate this year, perhaps less next year, this is an exercise difficult to understand. The only excuse being given is that we were the cheapest country in Europe in that respect. Thank God, we had something cheaper than the rest of Europe. The Letterkenny Chamber of Commerce called a meeting recently, inviting all public representatives to attend, to examine what action might be taken to enable traders to keep in business against the free importation of goods from across the Border which are much cheaper than they are on our side. Many traders in Donegal will be faced with the proposition of having to close down because the £52 worth the customer could bring in goes up to £100 in January and the limit disappears altogether as from June next under the Anglo-Irish free trade area agreement. These people find that there are so many commodities cheaper, many of them manufactured here, many of them affecting the building industry. Now because there was one commodity which was going to be cheaper here than on the other side, we took immediate action to ensure not merely that we would come up to the level but that we would go one further. We made it dearer so that traffic would go the other way.

Some of us frequently in the Six Counties — due to our proximity to the Border — are only too familiar with the cheaper range of commodities purchasable there. It is despicable to find the price of petrol increased, one of the things most likely to act as a stimulant to our tourist industry and yield us some reward against other commodities dearer to the tourist here. The Minister could not even wait until the 15th January for the forthcoming budget. He had to take action before Christmas. It may be all right for those people living in large towns and cities who can step out to public transport but in a county like Donegal surrounded by the Border with not one yard of railway line it is not good enough. For example, it is a 180 mile journey for me from my home to this city. Neither is it good enough for the people of the west who must make long journeys to hospitals, schools, universities or anywhere else. These are the people who will have to pay and not the wealthy about whom the Minister spoke, of the small amount involved and of the little difference it would make. Driving along the roads over the weekend and coming up here today one passes county council road workers. Thank God, one sees a line of cars along the bog roads where those council workers are employed, every one of them using an old banger to reach his place of work and travel home in the evening. One sees also little factories in country towns with a stack of cars outside. Their owners have come in from the country, from their small farms to work. Those are the people who will have to pay the extra £1 or £2 per week for petrol not the wealthier people with the high-powered cars who can afford it.

It is the same old story—the weaker people are the ones to be hit when something like this happens. In this case those who will be hit hardest are the ones living some distances from urban areas, for example, people on the western seaboard. Despite this the displeasure shown by this side of the House for the Minister's announcement last week was greeted with sarcasm and with laughter by those who occupy the Government benches. In effect the Minister's order means the extraction of a further £30 million from the pockets of the poorer of our people. Every Deputy who goes into the lobby this evening to support that measure should be prepared to offer his constituents an explanation for his action. Any such Deputy should be utterly ashamed of himself because nothing could justify support for what the Minister has done.

The last speaker told us that unlike England we cannot hope for self-sufficiency by 1980. If there is to be a continuance on the part of the Government, of a lack of policy in regard to our resources it would be difficult to know what we might expect in future. Because of this lack of policy there will be no exploration work carried out. Perhaps our great-grandsons will be waiting, too, for somebody to carry out the exploration of our resources. At a time when the country is most in need of some sign of confidence, of a shot in the arm from some direction, we are sitting back wondering what to do about our mineral resources. We cannot make up our minds on the question of the Continental Shelf or of our offshore potential supplies. If we are to nationalise them we shall have to borrow the necessary moneys from abroad; otherwise we must give them to people who will be prepared to use their own money. In the long run the people who have the money will be the ones to do the work. In the meantime we wait to see what is being done in Norway or in some other country. In other words, we fiddle while Rome burns.

I do not know what efforts the Minister has made or what examinations he has had carried out regarding the conservation of oil resources. If there have been any such examinations or efforts either by the Minister or by the Minister for Transport and Power we have not heard of them. We, on this side, would probably not be in a position to carry out an examination of this question because we do not have all the necessary statistics available to us. There are a number of exercises that the Minister could have undertaken in regard to a positive conservation policy in respect of oil other than to bring in a measure under the pretext of its being a policy of that nature. Did it not occur to the Minister to supply coupons to workers for the purpose of their getting their basic requirements at the old rate, paying the increased rate for any further supplies purchased? While that might not be very practicable it would be a useful possibility to examine. It is something that would have a desirable effect in regard to the discussions that must take place when the next national wage agreement is proposed. Measures of this kind would prove to the people that the Minister was examining alternatives. As has been said recently here, the test of any Government is their ability to act in times of difficulty and particularly in times of crisis but we have no evidence of any alternatives being examined in regard to the oil situation. We have no evidence of any serious thought having been given to the many steps that could have been taken in so far as resources are concerned.

It did not require much forethought to come into the House with an imposition of duties order and to hold the House up to ransom—an action that was not very different from the robbing of a bank except that in this case no guns were used to extract £30 million from the people under the pretext of doing something about the deficit in the balance of payments. The people are not prepared to accept the explanation given by the Minister. No doubt the Government will use their majority to bulldoze this measure through the House but I am aware that not one member on the Government side is pleased with what is happening. However, they must whistle past the graveyard tonight because the alternative is dissolution of the Dáil and they would be the most disillusioned people in the country if the Dáil were to be dissolved at present. But I do not think they are likely to take that chance and, consequently, they must support the most despicable action ever experienced in the history of this House. It is not likely that anything we say at this stage will influence the Minister but it is our duty to point out that no amount of money of the magnitude involved here should be sanctioned without there at least being a debate. I would like to hear from some other speakers on the Government side. The Government have a motion on the Order Paper but the last speaker did not refer once to that motion. I do not blame him for that because his embarrassment was obvious, but he made reference to a note that was left on his desk by the Minister for Finance pointing out that we are now taking only 59 per cent——

Mr. R. Ryan

58.7 per cent——

Mr. Brennan

——in tax whereas in 1969 we were taking 62 per cent.

Mr. R. Ryan

66.7 per cent. I am sure it is purely accidental that the Deputy increased one figure and decreased another.

Mr. G. Collins

Let the Minister not be so cocky. His sleight-of-hand statistics are well known. He ought to be ashamed of himself.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. Esmonde

The Deputy is indulging in personal remarks.

Mr. Brennan

The old device of using percentages from different bases when one wants to make comparisons is so elementary that I am surprised at the Minister resorting to that trick which only an accountant might have used 50 years ago to buck up a client. The Minister's figures will not impress anyone. I would be glad if the Minister would explain to the House that the exercise of reducing the balance of payments by about £1 million——

Mr. R. Ryan

£7 million.

Mr. Brennan

We shall wait and see which figures are correct. I would say his estimate of £7 million would be as accurate as his budget estimates a few months ago, which have already proven to be disastrous.

It was most disappointing that the Minister should say in his brief statement that because this increase does not apply to diesel and other grades of fuel it will not affect industry. Does he appreciate—and I do not think he does—that in the west all our small business concerns, such as bakeries, laundries, clothes cleaners, have small trucks and vans which use petrol entirely. They will be immediately and directly affected as a result of this increase, which will immediately be passed on to the consumer. The percentage of diesel trucks to be found in the west would be infinitesimal, if we disregard those belonging to larger concerns outside and operating in the area.

Anybody who says there will not be increases in consumer goods prices as a result of the action the Minister has taken is either pretending or is not familiar with the circumstances of different areas. If the Minister will not accept our motion he should do something on the lines I have already suggested, issue coupons to those who are using the small vehicle entitling them to the same quantity of fuel they have been using at the old price. If they want to buy anything over and above their basic ration as fixed—and it would not be a difficult thing to do —then let them pay the higher price. This at least would put them on a par with concerns in centralised areas who have the choice of using other grades of oil that will not be affected to the same extent.

That is only one of the many things the Minister might examine in the whole question of petrol, only one of the many things that would be of direct benefit to the people at a time when they are on their knees, at a time when they are gazing at the growing dole queues week after week, going up by 1,000 to 3,000 a week, and now well over 80,000. Let the Minister do something even at this late hour and not hurl insults at the country and across at this side of the House. We can take it but the country cannot take it. It is not amusing. The Members of the Government side of the House may laugh, but the housewife who finds that her husband's pay packet or his dole cheque has become of less value each week is not laughing on the eve of Christmas.

I will finally appeal to the Minister to apologise to the House for the way in which he introduced this additional taxation and to have second thoughts about its imposition. If any Deputy on that side of the House can prove to me that this is conferring a benefit on anyone other than the Minister for Finance, then I would like to hear him. The Minister tried to put it across as if he were conferring some benefit on the people. We were the only country in the world with petrol so cheap and this had to be corrected immediately. I worry because there might be other things that would fall into the same category, that this would establish a precedent, that if anything else became cheaper than it was elsewhere in Europe, it would have to be shot up immediately to ensure that there would not be one single commodity that would be cheaper to us than it was in any other country in Europe, despite the fact that many commodities across the Border are much cheaper than anything we can buy at home and people are frequently going across to purchase them.

It is not lower than what I buy in Enniskillen at the weekend. I would like to hear the Minister on that. According to the Minister the people coming across the Border to buy our petrol were doing serious harm and the course to take was to stop them. If we follow that to its logical conclusion the right thing for us to do is to go across and buy petrol in the North and shoot up their balance of payments and thus indirectly do ourselves a good turn.

Without wishing to appear cynical or sarcastic I would appeal to the Minister to do something to relieve the distress that his actions of last week have undoubtedly caused the country. There should be something done to ease the blow, something to reassure the people that if something is cheaper here than it is elsewhere the Minister will not rush into this House with an imposition of Duties Order to ensure it is no longer cheaper.

Mr. Esmonde

I listened with interest to the last speaker's contribution when he said that the balance of payments is bad only if there is a net outflow and that we have no reason to worry at the moment because we have a net inflow at the capital end of the account. There are many other matters which are showing a net inflow.

Mr. Brennan

I was quoting from the ESRI report.

Mr. R. Ryan

They also said to reduce oil movement.

Mr. Esmonde

I want to go a bit further. That may be all right but we must pay for it eventually. One cannot live in a "manaña" land. One must be realistic and take steps when there is a duty to do so. Nobody, especially a country Deputy who has to cover many miles, likes the increase in the price of petrol. But that is beside the point. One must look at the overall picture.

It is recommended in the report referred to by Deputy Brennan that one must cut consumption of energy —energy includes oil and petrol. Indeed, in the Bulletin of the European Committee, Supplement 4/74, entitled "Towards a New Energy Policy Strategy for the European Community" on page 25, there is reference to "Measures to be taken to deal with supply difficulties". To describe the matter as "supply difficulties" is a gentle way of putting the problem which faces European countries. It states:

It is consequently necessary to create a framework which will make it possible to establish, in the event of supply difficulties:...

(iii) A range of measures to reduce consumption, harmonised and balanced in accordance with the structures specific to each Member State, and not of a nature to prejudice free movement.

That may sound a nice way of putting it. It is basically saying: get your priorities in order. The Minister has been faced with virtually providing the finance for two nations where previously he had to supply only for one. This has been the effect of the fuel or oil crisis. It has had very serious repercussions on Irish industry and agriculture. As any Deputy who is in touch with his constituents knows, requests for assistance to deal with the greatly increased costs which have resulted from the price of oil have been made. I am talking about oil used for productive and, particularly, for industrial purposes. This includes the association which looks after the interests of glasshouse cropping and the agricultural sector.

The Minister for Finance is left with the suggested EEC directive to curtail the inflow of petroleum products. There are two simple ways of doing this: one, to increase the price on the basis that this reduces the demand or, two, to use the quota system. The Minister has already referred to the fact that we are bound by certain conventions and treaties which preclude us from using the quota system. It is very doubtful if the quota or rationing system could be made to work in peace time.

There is a certain mental approach on the part of the public to demand and supply. In time of war people will be prepared to put up with rationing and a quota system because they know they must. It is very hard to convince them to take the same attitude, to have the same frame of mind in peace time. When one begins to bring in controls based on quota restrictions, one is virtually opening the road to a black market because one does not have the border controls which would exist in war time. By virtue of peace time, the economy is a much more open one. I imagine it would be practically impossible, unless there was an overall embargo on the use of petroleum.

The Minister's way may be regarded by some people as tough and hard. They are entitled to their view. One must look at it from the point of view of the Minister for Finance. What were his options? They are many in the sense of where he could make the shoe pinch in order to restrict consumption of petroleum and oil products. He could put a blanket increase on all petroleum and petroleum-like products. What would be the effect? It would hit medicine, agricultural sprays, increase agricultural costs, and prohibit the use of sprays in agriculture. That is one small facet of the situation which the Minister must consider when abiding by this directive, this common concerted action of the countries of Europe in dealing with the fuel crisis.

If he were to put a charge on ordinary forms of diesel oil, domestic, communal and institutional, central heating would rise. It has risen a considerable amount already because of outside influences. This could be a serious matter when it relates to institutions such as hospitals. What would be the song from the Opposition if there had been an increase in central heating oil supplied to institutions? What would have been the cry from the Opposition if the oil to factories had been increased? We should dwell on that for a second or two.

I also have before me the Newsletter from the Confederation of Irish Industry of 3rd December, 1974. In their pre-budget submission to the Minister, they said that in order to make any effort at maintaining the same number employed in industry as was in industry in early 1974, an extra £22 million would have to be found. It says that to hold employment at the early 1974 level Irish industry is now £22 million short of the external cash flow required. Was the Minister to increase the price of oil for industry and put further pressure on that very weak spot in the Irish industrial structure? That has not been dealt with by the Opposition spokesmen. No Opposition spokesman has referred to the possible increased price of other petroleum products, like sprays and medicine in agriculture.

No reference has been made to the fact that the tax does not hit the owner of a tractor or agricultural machinery. They are all run on diesel oil. Deputy de Valera referred to public transport. He may have taken a particular issue when he spoke but because the Minister avoided any increase on fuel used for public vehicles transport for schools and people going to work can be maintained at its present price.

Deputy Brennan said that the increase in the price of petrol will hit the tourist industry. I do not know if that is a valid point. I have no figures to show what the petrol consumption by tourists is, but I imagine it is minimal having regard to the overall consumption. It is essential to bear in mind that hotel owners find a large part of their overhead costings goes on heat. We have not always got a benign climate and we are trying to expand our tourist season beyond the warm and fine months of the year so that we will have a 12-month tourist season.

We know from figures produced that the largest part of our oil consumption is by the power stations which give the power required for Irish industry. If the strategy of the Government is correct—I believe the Opposition spokesmen agree with this —that our first priority is to maintain employment, one would have imagined there would have been a more constructive and responsible approach by Opposition spokesmen on this matter. They have left out of consideration all the matters I have mentioned. One would have imagined, when dealing with the price of petrol and its implications, they would have taken an overall view of the Irish economy and seen it in its correct context.

I was amazed by the little slip of the tongue from Deputy Brennan, when he wept political tears for the poor man on the dole, that his dole payment would be less because the price of petrol had increased. What sort of thinking is that? The people who are on social welfare payments, who are driving around in new cars, are driving the rest of the people mad.

Does anybody believe this will really happen? I am sure the Minister does not believe that the measures he has taken will have the result he tells us it will have. He is very like the man who drank his brandy and ginger ale and then said it was for the sake of the ginger ale he drank it.

I should like to deal with the case the Minister makes and the action he has taken—a fraudulent case—and expose it through some extracts from the latest publication, "A National Partnership" to which the Minister referred in his speech. Paragraph 78 of that document says:

The Government ... are determined instead to give priority to the maintenance of employment and the preservation of living standards. This will be the core of the Government's response to the present economic situation.

I should like to see some evidence of this. I refer to the hypocrisy of the Government's proposal. The reasons they gave are not in keeping with what they would hope to achieve. I see a great conflict between what the Government say, what they promise, what they write and what they do and what they really mean. I see a conflict between the avowed intentions to achieve greater economy in the use of petrol and reduce our balance of payments and what the Government are really doing. These are very laudable objectives with which we would agree but why did the Government wait until now to act so savagely?

Recently, when the Government issued its White Paper they called for a spirit of national partnership and they pointed out how much we depend on each other and said we should act accordingly. In any partnership that has a hope of succeeding there should be mutual trust. Why did the Government or some responsible Member—if such can be found in that motley crew—not say, six months ago: "We are using too much oil and petrol. We must make a national effort to curtail its use. We will give you six months to show how sincere you are and if there is not a good decrease by then we shall have to take further steps and we may have to increase the price? They could, perhaps, have followed that by saying: "To prove our sincerity, we will give good example as a Government by restricting the use of State cars and following the advice the Minister gave in introducing this measure of using smaller cars." Perhaps they could have followed the good example of the people of Holland early this year when they faced a much more serious oil crisis than we did and when Members of Parliament there used bicycles.

We saw no mention of this; there was no mention by the present Government of oil or of how we should curtail its use until this measure was introduced. Could the Minister not have decided that the ration books distributed but not used last year should now be brought into use and that people be allowed a limited amount of petrol at the old price and if they wished to use more of it—or abuse it—they would pay more for it? Had something like this been done, people would agree that a reasonable effort had been made and that the Government were sincere. But the fact that no move was made up to now to curtail the use of petrol proves to me and to the country how insincere the Government are. They did the opposite; they bought new and larger cars with greater petrol consumption, and without consultation or giving Members of this House the right to vote, they increased taxation.

Paragraph 85 in the national partnership document refers to the expansion of the fuel efficiency scheme administered by the Department of Transport and Power, the fuel efficiency service provided by the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards and the grant schemes available to industrialists from the IDA for conserving energy. This is good but when will we see them and why the delay? Why did the Government not show that they were willing to enter into a partnership with the people? Just because the people—and not without good reason—have lost faith in this Coalition Government, it is not right that the Coalition Government should lose faith in the people.

Before you can solve any problem you must identify it. We must admit that there is a problem and it is now necessary that the Government should admit that there is no money in the kitty. We could then set about solving our problems. But all Government Ministers show a distinct reluctance to admit that anything is wrong. The Minister for Local Government, even when faced with damning evidence that there was a crisis in the building trade, would not admit it. The Minister for Industry and Commerce would not admit that there was any danger to job security or any prospect of redundancy for a long time. Last August when Euroglass in Newbridge closed down with the loss of 120 jobs and when I had information to show that another firm there was in grave difficulties I wrote to the Minister and asked him to take whatever steps were necessary so that there would be no further loss of jobs. The reply I got was that a further grant had been given which would generate a further 200 jobs and that there was no danger——

An Ceann Comhairle

That is hardly relevant to the motion under discussion.

Mr. Power

Those people are now on a three day week. There is reluctance to face reality and every Minister is unwilling to admit that there is anything wrong. But there was no reluctance to claim credit in the palmy, honeymoon days, of the Coalition Government. They should at least admit now that there is no money in the kitty and that that is why this proposal has been introduced. Even now, if they would come clean and put their cards on the table there might be some opportunity of solving this problem. The people have been very good to the present Coalition Government, with the assistance of the media which helped a good deal but I do not think they will tolerate this deception any longer and will not forgive this.

I say to the Government that if they wish to raise taxation they should do that on drinks and cigarettes. Cigarettes are a distinct danger to health. I mentioned before that at every weekend lounge bars are full. If the Government were honest enough and were not afraid to lose votes they would have taken this action long ago. This is where the drain is. The Parliamentary Secretary might ask the Taoiseach and his Ministers to apply themselves to this problem. He asked me if this was Fianna Fáil policy but I told him it was my personal policy. He agreed it was a brave statement but nothing has been done in the meantime.

I remember meeting the Minister for Finance on one occasion when I had contributed in a debate here and, rather patronisingly, he said, "Good man, Pat, you did your best." I say to the Minister that if the action he took is his best he has not done much for the country. It was the worst step possible for our economy. The effects of his action will be felt in every sector; when the increase on petrol filters down it will be felt in all firms and the cost of goods and services will increase. The cost of living will rise even further and there will be even greater inflation. The record increase in petrol will lead to a record increase in prices.

Deputy Esmonde asked what would be the cry from our side if the cost of oil to factories and hospitals had been increased. What is the point of such a question? Why should the question of increased oil costs to factories and hospitals enter into the matter? Why talk of any increase? The Arabs did not increase the price of oil recently; it is available quite freely and is not in short supply. What we are dealing with here is a Ryan-made increase of 15 per cent and it is a real domestic matter.

Deputy Esmonde seemed to infer that people on social welfare should not have cars. He was appalled at the thought that a person without a job would draw his social welfare payments. There are 80,000 people out of work at the moment. I know of hundreds in my constituency who used drive to work in the building industry in this city but they are now out of work. They had their cars to drive to work and they still have them. Perhaps it is Coalition policy, the landlord tradition of the Fine Gael Party in particular, that these people should not have motor cars.

Mr. Kelly

He followed that with the remark:

and the Garda Síochána are being asked to ensure that the limit is respected.

That is the tone of the announcement. That is the waving of the big stick. Do what you are told or we will see that you do it. The people were not asked to do this. When idealism is dead on the benches over there it is assumed also that the last spark of idealism and patriotism is dead in the country too. This is further evidence of the arrogance of a party that is divorced from the ordinary people. I note that ambulances and the Garda are exempt from this.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy's time is now up.

Mr. Power

I thought I had a few minutes, Sir. I did not get time to say all I would like to say. The Government have shown no determination to curtail the usage of petrol. There is no need for this. It is a ploy that is being forced on the people. I would ask Deputies opposite, although they do not seem to show much interest in the proceedings, to vote against the increase and to help us get rid of a disastrous Government, the most disastrous this country has ever experienced.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Kelly)

I shall begin by referring to a subject to which Deputy Power adverted briefly, namely, the effect he thought the increased petrol price might have on the tourist industry. Now the value which a country can give a potential tourist is an important part of its attraction but surely Deputy Power will admit——

Mr. O'Malley

Would it not be nice if the Professor had a few of his own pupils to listen to him?

Mr. Kelly

Only a quarter of an hour ago Deputy Power was the only occupant of his own Front Bench — this is the thing we are all supposed to get excited about — and the word went out to Fianna Fáil: "Come down, lads. Paddy Power is there all by himself" and those Deputies who were otherwise gainfully employed until five minutes ago came thumping down in order to back Paddy Power. The average attendance here today since four o'clock was about 3.6.

Mr. Tunney

One would think that, when they would not speak, they would at least come down and give their Parliamentary Secretary some support. The Parliamentary Secretary could not screw them to come. They refused to come.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Mr. O'Malley

I am making the point——

Mr. O'Malley

I pointed out — if I may repeat what I have already said and I do not think anyone has disputed or can dispute it — that Deputy Power made certain references to tourism and he was ruled out of order and, I believe, rightly so. The Parliamentary Secretary made certain references to tourism and nothing happened. He was allowed to continue.

Mr. Dowling

The burning of the British Embassy was what he was talking about.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The net point at issue is not between Deputies in general, I take it, and the Chair. The net point at issue is what Deputy O'Malley alleges against the Chair as unfair treatment.

Mr. O'Malley

I have drawn the House's attention to a fact.

Mr. Kelly

Will the Deputy withdraw and be done with it?

Mr. O'Malley

I cannot withdraw drawing the House's attention to a fact and no one will deny that it is a fact.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What the Deputy is saying is that there is one form of treatment for people on one side of the House and a different form of treatment for people on the other side.

Mr. G. Collins

With all due respect, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is not the worst.

Mr. O'Malley

It is clear that the cost of everything is going up and that any Government, whether a Fine Gael Government, or a Coalition Government, or a Fianna Fáil Government, or even a Communist Government if ever we see such a thing, will have to push up revenue for so long as the services which Government provide rise in price. That is clearly evident. That being so, I want to draw the attention of the House to a couple of figures which were given today by the Minister for Transport and Power but which may not have sufficiently impressed themselves on Deputies. Do not forget that what this House is being invited to do is to condemn a fiscal measure introduced by the Minister for Finance which has the result of raising the price of petrol by increasing the tax content of the price of petrol.

As the Minister for Transport and Power told the House earlier today, in the middle of 1969 the proportion of the price of the gallon of petrol represented by tax was 66.7 per cent: two-thirds of the gallon of petrol was being sold for the sake of the revenue in 1969. Today that situation is not radically different. On 5th December, the date on which the Minister's statement became operative, in other words, as from the imposition of this new levy, the proportion of the price of a gallon of petrol represented by tax is actually under 60 per cent. It is 58.7 per cent even after this additional levy. If one were to regard as the norm 1969 which was a beano year for Fianna Fáil—it was all systems go in those days for the Fianna Fáil Government — one would realise that, in spite of this levy, this Government have succeeded in reducing the taxation content of the price of a gallon of petrol. That means, in its turn, that until this measure was imposed by the Minister with the mechanism he has explained earlier the Irish motorist was getting his petrol at a lower rate of tax than he had been getting it for years. The motorist was getting it at a far lower rate than he had been getting it in the beano year of 1969, shortly before the explosions and volcanic eruptions in Fianna Fáil became serious.

The reduction in the use of petrol which it is expected the imposition of the extra tax will cause is something which the people are going to have to live with. These are easy words to speak. It may be said by Deputies opposite in regard to an office holder like myself that they are very easy words for somebody who is wafted from point A to point B at the public expense in a powerful car. My own situation is that I make very little use of the car allotted to me. I walk a lot of the time to and from work and I frequently take a bus. I dislike making unnecessary, trivial or casual use of the State car for a variety of reasons. I do not expect that these reasons are going to hold valid in the case of office holders who live in remote parts. That is my own point of view and I utter it in order to invalidate or to rebut in advance any argument based on the fact that it is easier for me to talk. It is not all that easy for me to talk; I do not make a special killing out of the State car at my disposal and anybody who knows me knows that is the case.

I dislike the increasing reliance of people who live essentially within walking or bus distance of their work on their motor car. What was seen here in an effort by the Minister for Finance by fiscal means to reduce petrol consumption is the tip of an iceberg. In saying that I am not trying to give an easy subhead or by-line to leader writers or commentators. It is in no sense an announcement beforehand of economic or budget secrets to which I am privy. I do not know what the next budget will contain: I suppose I might know had I been present at all Government meetings and had kept my ear to the ground. I do know, and anybody inside or outside of politics can see it coming a mile away, that the style of life——

Mr. Molloy

The style of Government.

Mr. Kelly

——to which we have too rapidly become accustomed, not just in this country but in western Europe, is going to have to change because there is neither rhyme nor reason to it in itself or when compared with the style of life in the vast majority of the populated globe.

The Deputy is seeking to argue with the Chair. Deputy Molloy should know, better than anybody else, Deputy Cunningham equally so, the position.

This is disgraceful. The Deputy is only trying to whittle away my time.

Mr. McMahon

The Deputy was sent in to do this.

Mr. Molloy

Where are the members of the Labour Party?

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Cunningham

Might I inquire as a matter of information and on a point of order if the Government, who are responsible for maintaining a House, do not do so and we call for a House whether they will have that delay added to their speaker's time?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The speaker gets his 30 minutes. That is the ruling of the Chair. The Parliamentary Secretary has five minutes left.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Kelly

The morning after this measure was announced I saw more than one comment in the papers which tended to make fun of the Minister's equation of cheapness with liability to waste in regard to petrol. I was very interested, therefore, to notice on a television programme quite rightly laid on by RTE which showed an angry reaction on the part of people selected — I do not mean deliberately selected but, I presume, at random — all of whom were hostile, as are we all naturally, to having to pay more for something. Speaking from memory, of the five or six people asked for a reaction to the increased petrol prices, two said they were now going to have to use less petrol. What could be a more striking vox populi demonstration of the correctness of what the Minister said than that? We all know that the cheaper a product is, the less one thinks of it.

Mr. Dowling

Does the same thing apply to bread and butter, the necessaries of life?

Mr. Kelly

It does; certainly it does.

If there is an ounce of sincerity in the Opposition stance let them promise tonight to remove that 15p. If they will not make that promise let them get out of the House——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Leonard

The Parliamentary Secretary spent most of the last half hour speaking about everything except the tax on petrol.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Leonard

He did concede one thing. It was this, that the Minister for Finance could not wait until the 15th January to get money. That is one thing that could be gleaned from the Parliamentary Secretary's speech.

The Minister spoke about the serious situation that would arise if our petrol remained at 50.5p while the price in the North stood at 63.5p. He said he was worried about the leak that would occur in northern drivers coming across the Border to fill up their tanks. Far be it from me to challenge the Minister on leaks. I feel that is a subject on which the Government are well qualified to speak. In view of the measures taken by the Parliamentary Secretary, it could more aptly be called a spillage. The record of the Coalition from the time they came into power was one of leaks. While other Coalitions were remembered for many things, definitely not to the country's advantage or their credit, in years to come this Government will be known for its leaks.

Mr. Kelly

We did not leak any guns yet, anyway.

Mr. Leonard

We shall come to the guns in a minute.

Mr. Molloy

What about Donegan's shotgun?

Mr. Leonard

The Minister's speech referred to leaks and to petrol going across the Border. I cannot reconcile his statement at all with that of Deputy Thornley in the EEC Parliament on the 13th November—where they were discussing cross-Border co-operation and regional development— when he stated and I quote from the Report of proceedings of the European Parliament:

I think that to discuss this subject without being aware that a ring of steel, in effect, separates the North from the South is unrealistic. It is completely unrealistic to ignore the fact that there have been between 150 and 200 exchanges of fire between the security forces of the North and South of Ireland. It is unrealistic not to take into account the fact that the nearest town to the South in the North, Newry, is virtually rendered a desert by bomb explosions.

I will not deal with the rights and wrongs of this matter now. It would not be correct to do so. However, I think that to discuss transborder aid at this point when everybody is blowing up everybody else is slightly unrealistic, to put it mildly.

Mr. Kelly

Is this relevant to the debate?

Mr. Leonard

Taking into account these points made by Deputy Thornley it is difficult to understand how the Minister for Finance would expect the residents of the North to descend in their thousands on petrol stations this side of the Border. Was Deputy Thornley talking through his hat? Was the Minister talking through his hat? I suggest that both were talking nonsense, that neither has any idea of what the situation on the Border is like. For reasons of serious business or regarding family matters people will cross the Border but to suggest that they would come across in vast numbers so as to avail of a price difference of 13p per gallon for petrol is unrealistic. In the first place people would have to travel long distances so that the effort would not be worthwhile. Apart from that factor we might expect that these people would place some value on their time. Then, there are the regular checks and searches carried out by the security forces on the Border.

On Saturday last while going from Clones to Cavan I travelled through that part of County Monaghan that adjoins Fermanagh and I was stopped by the British military one mile inside the Fermanagh border. There was a long queue on either side and each motorist was delayed for about 20 minutes. There was no search at that point, merely a routine check. On entering County Monaghan I encountered a Garda/Army checkpoint; a mile further on, approaching the Cavan border, I was stopped again by a British Army patrol. On this occasion my car was checked thoroughly. I mention this so as to give an indication of what would face people should they cross the Border a number of times each week. In the present circumstances one could not avoid those checks either by our own or by the British security forces. I am not criticising the exercise but am merely making the point that it is totally unrealistic to talk of people from the North coming to the South to buy, say, four or five gallons of petrol on each journey. If it were the case that petrol were rationed severely in the North I could understand people going to great lengths to obtain it wherever possible, even if this meant paying a higher price for it, but there is no rationing in the North. We can take it, too, that most people are too busy to drive a number of miles regularly in order to save 13p per gallon on petrol.

I cannot understand why the Minister did not give us a more credible explanation for introducing this measure. One recalls a time after the last war when drink was much cheaper on this side of the Border than on the other side so that people organised excursions from such places as Armagh, Dungannon and even Belfast, to the south for an evening's drinking. It used be said then that they drank in excess so as to make a profit. In regard to what we are discussing here it would be necessary to buy a lot of petrol in order to make a profit. In other days when the price of petrol here justified Northerners crossing the Border and taking petrol home in containers that was a regular practice but it is something that is not on now because no man would be foolish enough, even if he were to get petrol for nothing, to take it across the Border in containers.

During the energy crisis of 12 months ago, coupons were issued by the Government. Surely this could have been done again so as to limit supplies to private motorists, that is, if the Minister were serious about the conservation of supplies. There would have been much more respect for the Minister if he had been honest enough to tell us that the reason for the measure was that the Government needed the extra money, that they could not wait until January to get it. The Parliamentary Secretary's contribution has confirmed that to be the position. The increases in prices that have taken place to date during this Government's term of office have had a numbing effect on the people and the Minister's statement last week was the killer punch. This leaves the Minister in the position of being able to do as he wishes. The people have given up the ghost so far as prices are concerned.

In introducing his measure the Minister should have told the people of the state of the economy. He should have told them, too, that additional money would be required in January.

Speakers for this side of the House have emphasised clearly what will be the situation not only of the ordinary workers but of professional men and farmers as a result of this increase. It is all right for a Dublin Minister who does not understand the situation in rural areas to think in terms of a person in the city getting to work for a 5p or a 10p bus fare. The situation in the country is very different where people have to travel distances of up to 50 miles to work, that is, if they can obtain employment at all. They travel to Dublin from such centres as Carrickmacross, Ardee, Navan and Kingscourt.

It would be easy enough to assess the cost and it would be assessing it very low to say that it would cost them £2 or £3 a week extra for their transport to and from work, regardless of whether they travel in their own private car or along with their workmates, which is not always possible because many of those workers travel at different times to different jobs and must use their own private cars. The Minister will have to introduce a twotier system or allow them an income tax refund to compensate them for this massive increase which is tantamount to making them unemployed, because for many of those men it would not be a paying proposition to travel 45 to 50 miles to their work.

There are clergymen of every demonination who are feeling the pinch in trying to keep their cars on the road and for whom cars are essential. From the Minister's speech you would think every motorcar in rural Ireland was a luxury. If a check were made very few cars would come into that category. The farmer needs his car to transport his family daily, to transport his milk to the creamery and, in these changed times, to transport his bulk tanks, containing, perhaps, 120 gallons of milk. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries made a song and dance about the milk increase but that is being swallowed up well in advance by this 15p increase in petrol.

The pig population, especially in my area, has decreased so much that veterinary surgeons have lost between 25 and 50 per cent of their calls. They will have to increase their charges if they are to keep their cars on the road. The AI operators who perform another essential service for farmers have increased their charges per call substantially over the years, and despite those increases there was a lot of discontent among the operators that they were not being recompensed for the use of their own vehicles. There was a strike which had a very serious effect in that north eastern part of the country only last year, the effect of which will be felt greatly in milk production next summer. The fees of these operators are certain to be increased again.

Many social workers and voluntary workers of every description use their cars in fund-raising activities. Building concerns have their representatives out collecting accounts, particularly firms connected with Readymix concrete and limestone quarries. All of these people will have to have a substantial amount of money put towards their operations in future.

The Minister was so apologetic when he said we had the lowest petrol price in Europe that you would think it was a crime to have it. He did not say that, while we might have the lowest petrol price in Europe, we probably had the highest rate of motor taxation and other charges imposed on car-owners. Neither did he say that while there was a differential between the price of petrol here and in the North that differential was eaten up by increased taxation, higher insurance and higher costs of maintenance on the car due to the extra cost of spare parts.

There is also the problem that due to prohibitive premiums many people find it difficult, if not impossible, to obtain insurance cover, and all Deputies receive representations about this from time to time. I would like to quote from the Minister's speech at column 977, Volume 276, of the Official Report of Wednesday 4th December, 1974:

Thirdly, the price rises of the last year have hit petrol relatively less than any other oil product. This is because the duty element in the price of petrol forms a sizeable fraction of its retail price...

He goes on to say:

In Italy, petrol costs nearly 88p a gallon, in France over 74p, in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany the price ranges from 69p to 74p a gallon. Even in oil-rich Norway it is 76p. In Northern Ireland and Britain the price of premium petrol is 63½p per gallon. The existence of such a large difference as nearly 13p on a gallon of petrol between the Republic and the North has obvious disadvantages for our economy.

As I pointed out, it had very little disadvantage. The Minister who is sitting in for the Minister for Finance, Deputy Ryan, said the last day that we were the poor relation of the EEC. Now we have the Minister for Finance grouping us with Denmark and other countries with whom there is no comparison as regards salaries, wages and the cost of living. It is completely unrealistic to do that. He mentioned that the cheap petrol would flow into Northern Ireland. It was not flowing to any extent into Northern Ireland. Men who are working in the Border areas would top up their tanks before going home. That was to be expected. To say it was flowing out is completely wrong.

I live two or three miles from the Border. The village about half a mile from where I live is three miles from the Border post. I have yet to see two cars at the petrol station filling up. There was no convoy from the North to filch our petrol. I have never yet seen one of those pumps out of petrol, although they have a very small storage capacity, some of them under 1,000 gallons. Therefore, if there was a cross-Border flow of petrol these pumps would have run out of petrol and the "no petrol" sign would have been up. That had not happened.

I would be very interested to know where the Minister got his information that this was happening. He should have had surveys taken to prove the truth of such an assertion. It is very wrong to come into this House and talk about leakages and petrol flowing over the Border when he has not the statistical evidence to prove that this was so. He should have told us he had at least checked at the frontier posts. Admittedly, he would not have been able to secure the information about every person from Northern Ireland who bought petrol in the Republic but he could have found out from the officers who keep a daily check at the frontier posts if there had been a very great flow from the North for petrol. I hope the Minister concluding this debate will be able to give information on the movement of cars between the North and the South.

People are unable to travel the unapproved roads because of damage. The petrol increase will deal a serious blow to the economy. Garages are going through a very lean period. Many salesmen say that their sales have dropped over the past 12 months, sometimes by as much as 50 per cent. Used car sales have dropped. Filling stations, especially stations owned by families who depend on the sale of petrol for their livelihood, will be badly affected. Travellers will also be affected.

I remember reading in the Official Reports some years ago that the Labour Party, then in Opposition, seemed to be very concerned about the "worker and his little car". Very few remarks were passed about the worker and his little car last Wednesday when the Minister made his announcement. It is a pity some Labour men did not give us an explanation about how they could support a motion which will be a body blow to the workers of rural Ireland at a time when they are hunting for work. Workers, especially in the construction industry, may have to travel long distances and therefore they will be worst hit. The day will come when they will be unable to travel to work because of the increased price of petrol. Those men will be a grave loss to the building industry in Dublin, Drogheda and Dundalk. In years to come the effects of this increase will be very evident. Some allowance will have to be made for the men who are badly hit.

The introduction of the 50 mile speed limit is a panic measure similar to the local force on the Border and other kite-flyers. I do not believe it will save petrol. It will cause congestion and accidents. Men will be breaking queues and as a result there will be traffic jams.

This will also put a strain on the Garda, especially in areas along the Border where, from a security point of view, they have a great deal of extra work to do. They will be taken from this work to detect speeding. Other areas which have provided gardaí for Border duty are also working with a restricted panel.

The Coalition speak of the poor luck they had in the past and are having at present. They talk about oil crises and world problems. When Napoleon was about to appoint a general he asked the candidates not if they were intelligent or trained in the art of war, but if they were lucky.

Mr. Keating

We are lucky in the Opposition we have.

Mr. G. Collins

We will see how lucky you are in the next half hour. You are a bloody disgrace.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's time is up.

Mr. Leonard

This Government, like all Coalition Governments, are an unlucky Government for the people.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Next speaker, Deputy Blaney.

Mr. Blaney

A year ago when we had the oil crisis and for some considerable time after it we had members of the Government, inside and outside the House, excusing the various difficulties we were then facing, the increased costs, and relating it all to the big increase imposed on them by the producers of oil. It is rather amazing that the same people come along today and increase the price of petrol by a sum much greater than the total cost per gallon as a result of the oil increase a year ago. If it was such a bad thing that there should be such a big increase by the oil producers, which amounts to 11p per gallon, why have the Government imposed this increase now? A year ago they laid the blame for our various difficulties on the increased price of oil. Those people are still getting only this extra 11p but now we have the Government adding 15p to the price of petrol.

This increase, according to the Minister for Finance, when he introduced the increase a week ago, and also today, is necessary because 10 per cent of our total oil usage is petrol. The imposition of the 15p increase in the price of petrol and the imposition of the 50 mile speed limit are expected to reduce the consumption by 10 per cent. If the additional cost imposed by the producing countries for the past year is of the order of £130 million then if we relate the 10 per cent usage of petrol to that overall bill, we get £13 million increase over and above what it cost us before. If we relate the alleged saving of 10 per cent that is to take place now as a result of these measures we finish up with a grand saving of £1.3 million. The necessity for the increase is based on the statement by the Minister that the balance of payments is in jeopardy, that the total of £300 million is being added to and that we must do something about it.

The Minister for Finance spoke at far greater length than was necessary. He could have said in three minutes flat what he said during the whole time he spoke and made more sense. He certainly would not have made so many senseless statements if he had less time. The Government will rake off £27 million per annum. That is a conservative figure and nobody knows that better than the Minister for Finance. It is liable to be quite a bit more. The more it is beyond that figure the less effective will have been the Minister's measures to reduce the consumption of petrol. He believes it may have the effect of reducing the consumption of petrol by 10 per cent. It will mean saving the balance of payments an additional increase of only £1.3 million.

The Minister told us we had the cheapest petrol in Europe, that it was absurd to have petrol sold at 50p per gallon. He also gave some significance to what he regarded as the leakage across the Border because of this absurd price of 50p. There will not be any leakage in that direction from now on. If there is any leakage it will be in the reverse direction. What virtue is there in having the price of our petrol dearer than in the Six Counties? Down through the years there were three commodities which we always tried to keep at not more and possibly less than the Six County prices. These were tobacco, liquor and petrol. This was because we depend to a large degree on cross-Border traffic, whether it be daily trippers, weekend trippers or people who stay for a longer period. We are now slamming the door in their faces, telling them to stay at home and that they can buy their petrol cheaper at home. We kept the price of petrol in the past at the same level or cheaper than the price in the Six Counties because we knew it made it slightly more attractive to the people who came across the Border if they could fill up their cars at a few pence less than they could at home, if they could buy their cigarettes or tobacco at a few pence less than at home so much the better and if they could have a drink at a few pence less all the better still.

When those people came across the Border we were not concerned about the amount they saved in buying their petrol, drink or cigarettes here but the other spending they did. This was a little inducement to them to come often and to stay for a long period. The Government have not only gone up to the Six County price of petrol but have gone beyond it. They have done this on the basis that it would be absurd to have the price of our petrol the cheapest in Europe, despite the fact they are already getting 24p per gallon out of it. They should have been satisfied with that rather than taking an extra 15p per gallon. Surely, in giving us this cure for our ills, in relation to the consumption of oil and the conservation of energy, they should have told us that on the cards —perhaps this is the reason why they got this increase in first—there will be another increase, at least equal to half the total put on by the Minister. There is no word about that or about the profit margins the dealers and retailers have been fighting about for the last year with the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Their capital requirements since last Wednesday have gone up very substantially and have to be paid for. If they are not paid for by an increase to the retailers then they must be paid for out of their pockets. The margin of a retailer who is not part of an oil combine is already too small. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is well aware of that.

We will have to pay any further increases that come along and we will be told by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that this is a matter over which we have no control. We have listened to that over the past year. Almost religiously, week by week, we get a litany of increased prices which have been sanctioned by the Prices Commission and by the Minister. The list is given on Friday evening or Saturday morning. All of those are excused by the Minister on the plea that they are factors over which we have no control.

Here is one factor over which the Government have entire control and they slap on the biggest increase on any commodity. This is all on the spurious argument advanced by the Minister for Finance. Do the Government not know that, apart from the niggardly savings which will be produced if this thing works as the Minister hopes it will, this is not a non-essential? Petrol is more essential to the people of this country, with its dispersed population and does not necessarily have regard to or be comparable with what the price is in other countries where there are high density populations and work forces are much more concentrated than they are here and where public transport by road and rail is far more highly developed. There are thousands of our workers entirely dependent on getting work where they can and they change with it when the work moves from one area to another. Generally this happens in the construction industry and they must follow the work; it is not static. It is impossible to provide any public service that would take into account these changes in pattern and the only way in which it is possible for this system to continue and for workers to take advantage of whatever work is available, particularly in rural parts, is to use car transport.

As regards the Minister's suggestion that savings can be made by pooling car resources, this has been going on for years. Does the Minister know what is happening in the country? If he goes to any building site down the country he will find how the workers provide transport and it is done by pooled transport provided by the workers themselves paying for it and there is no possibility of their availing of public transport because the pattern does not suit, cannot suit and even if it were attempted to provide a suitable pattern, it would be too transitory; before it could be established it would be not needed in a particular area.

It is all very well for the Minister to tell us to get smaller cars. Next he will tell us to get different carburettors with smaller jets, to put governors on them so that we cannot exceed 50 mph. All the time these items cost more than in the Six Counties or in England. Spare parts are ridiculously high, not through any fault of our workers, but because of the system of taxation on the importation of the parts needed. Is it any wonder that the people along the Border are incensed by what is being done now and are not amused at something that, in different circumstances, might be laughable? It is no joke for the Border towns to realise that what is being done is the final nail in their coffin so far as the cross-Border movement of people and traffic are concerned for the remainder of the winter. Do the Government realise what is happening? Do they realise that our people are swarming into the Six Counties to purchase products at lower prices than here? Their actions in increasing the price of petrol by 15p indicate they do not know what is happening.

We are going from bad to worse and the people who are suffering in the main are those using cars for essential purposes, who need them to get to their places of work. I am convinced that 90 per cent of our petrol is used by these people, not in a frivolous or wasteful manner. These are not the people who have big cars, it is not they who should change to the smaller cars because they are already using them. Who is the Minister trying to fool? Nothing in what he says makes any sense and the only deduction that can be made is that there is £27½ million or £30 million staring him in the face and he is grabbing it before it becomes too difficult to apply the increase of 15p in view of the impending increases about to take place in the near future.

There was another argument also and I thought it took the biscuit. In justifying the massive increase it was stated that this was the first increase in tax on petrol since 1969. What has that got to do with it? If it is wrong it is wrong. The fact that there were no increases by way of tax since 1969 was for the good reason that the Government recognised it was dear enough, that forces beyond our control were already in action driving it to a point where it was too dear for our needs. However, that is now being claimed as a virtue and it is one of the reasons given by the Minister for Finance in addition to the rag-bag of reasons why the 15p increase should be applied.

It is a scandalous situation and it shows a complete lack of appreciation by members of the Government of how the other half live in the country and how they will carry this massive increase. They are already in very difficult circumstances and they are seeking employment in any area where it is available. In many areas there is no public transport and the people who must use their cars are being bludgeoned by the Minister. Some of the Minister's colleagues must know the facts of the situation. They must have made them known to the Government but they are now sitting with tongue in cheek. It is inconceivable that they are unaware of the impact of this measure throughout rural Ireland. I am not minimising the impact on urban areas but it is a disaster to hit people in rural areas who have difficulty in securing employment and in getting to it, and who are paying through the nose to get to their place of employment.

The Government are inflicting tremendous hardship on the people. They are also telling the people in the Border towns that they can forget about attracting people from the Six Counties. The Government are allowing businesses along the Border to wither and die, firms that have been badly hit in the last five years because of trouble in the Six Counties.

Is there no appreciation in the Government of all these facts? If there is not, it is not yet too late for them to wake up. I have told them what is happening in the Border towns and in the more remote parts throughout the entire country. Cars are an essential for many workers and this measure, in addition to the already very high motoring costs, is a slap in the face to those people and an indication that the Government do not know or care what is happening.

I appeal in particular to the Minister for Industry and Commerce who is present to think again about this measure, to realise how little benefit is being obtained. He should disregard the fancy talk and stories of the Minister for Finance, he should get down to the basics and find out who will be hit, who will pay and what damage will be caused. When this is done he should re-examine the position. The Minister is responsible for prices. Do not say the Government have no control over this. They have entire control over it and they have spat in the eye of the Minister. Surely he has not been party to spitting in his own eye in the matter of 15p per gallon on top of a burden of higher insurance and higher car costs.

Deputy G. Collins rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

I will be calling on a speaker for the Government at 9.30.

Mr. G. Collins

At long last it appears the Government are learning the lesson that the responsibilities of Government are difficult at many times. The day-to-day workings of the Government at present are certainly proving very difficult for the people who are in Government. I should like to remind the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is present, that he and his colleagues, in an effort to become the Government of this country, promised the electorate that on their election to Government they would immediately bring about price control, they would stabilise prices and indeed reduce them in some instances. I sincerely hope that the Minister will avail of the opportunity to speak in this debate, a debate which has been forced on him and on the Government by his party, a debate which they tried to dodge and get out of. This is a topic which they refused to discuss on television last Friday night on the programme 7 Days. They were not represented at all. They refused to send a member of the Labour Party or of the Fine Gael Party to try to answer for the actions of the Government.

Mr. Crowley

They could not get anyone to go.

Mr. G. Collins

It is possible that they failed to get any member of their backbenchers to take up the cudgels for them, to try to offer some excuse to the general public for the way they were abused by this Labour/Fine Gael Government on Wednesday night last.

When this Government were looking for the support of the people at election time in early 1973 one of their proud boasts was that they would at all times have Government by consultation. That is what they wanted the people to believe. This was as false as many of the other promises made by them. The people see now that Government by consultation was just another political con job by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and his colleagues at election time. We did not have consultation about this price increase of 15p per gallon on petrol. The Minister for Finance said on Wednesday night that it was merely as a matter of courtesy that he came into this House to tell us that he was hitting the car owners to the tune of £27 million plus. He came in here to tell us as if it were none of our business. Let me say to the Government that it is our business. There is something very wrong with this open Government we heard so much about, this Government that would work through consultation with all bodies in the country, when they tell us when they are hitting the public for £27 million plus that they are coming in here as a matter of courtesy and that they will not have a debate on it here. Now they have been forced in here. Whether they like it or not they will listen to the truth and that is that the people are thoroughly disgusted with their actions, that the people are ashamed of those who are now in Government. Many supporters of the Fine Gael and Labour Parties feel utterly ashamed of the way they have behaved.

There was much speculation as a result of the Government-inspired leakage to the Press on last Tuesday to the effect that there was a red alert out for Wednesday's Dáil business, that their members in Europe were to be brought home to take part in a vote which was expected as a result of a very important announcement. Now we know what it was all about. The people, particularly of rural Ireland, know now that this action of the Labour/Fine Gael Government is another death blow to the people of rural Ireland. Some of the members of the Fine Gael/Labour political junta that is in power at present believe themselves that this action is wrong. It was interesting to note that on Wednesday night last the Taoiseach, the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, to whom the Minister for Industry and Commerce owes no political allegiance whatever refused to take his seat while the Minister for Finance was making his announcement. The Taoiseach instead stood up at the back with his head down on his hands listening to what was going on and did not take his seat for what was to be this major statement by the Minister for Finance. The question has been raised as to whether he even knew what it was all about, was he told what it was all about. We are not sure but he did not take his place.

Mr. Governey

That is a different story from saying that he refused to take it.

What is Deputy Coughlan's opinion about it?

Mr. Keating

"Efforts designed to reduce consumption of petroleum appear to be the most appropriate response to the situation." If Deputy Colley and I can at least find some consensus about that being a desirable thing to do, perhaps we will be bridging the gap a little. I want to refer to another source, a very recent publication from the National Economic and Social Council, "The Economy in 1974 and The Outlook for 1975"——

Mr. Davern

We know who wrote that one.

Mr. Keating

You may assail the people who wrote it if you wish. That is a possible tactic. It is a very broadly representative council. Some of the people in the most influential roles in that council have served the previous Government and are well known to Members of the Opposition. You can try to undermine their neutrality or their expertise if you like, but they are serious and respected economists. I want to quote from paragraph 6 on page 66:

General import controls would distort the pattern of production away from that desired on longer-term grounds and encourage inefficiency.

They go on to say:

The relative price of petrol and oil might be raised.

I am making the point that this may be totally wicked and totally foolish as has been presented by the Opposition, but if we are being wicked and foolish we are being so in the company of serious people who are economists and who are not politically indebted to either side, and who are trying to give their minds seriously to the difficulties facing the country at this time. Simply to present it as a piece of villainy on the part of a Government in panic is nonsense and cannot be made to accord with the facts. I would have feared the onset of the Opposition a great deal more if they had been more measured and more sensible. The response I got was an indication of the simplistic and total rejection of a measure simply on the opportunist ground that it is an unpopular one. That is the only reason.

Mr. Cunningham

The Minister was not here for the debate and neither were the Labour Party.

Mr. Tunney

Justify it.

Mr. G. Collins

Tell us why you put 15p on the gallon of petrol.

A Deputy

Self-raising Justin.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister must get his time the same as any other speaker.

Mr. Keating

I affirmed at the beginning that the action was correct. I then indicated that the opinion as to its correctness is shared by serious people who are not political. Now I want to put on the record of the House a small part of an editorial in The Irish Times.

Mr. G. Collins

Forget about that. We know all about that.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies should allow the Minister to speak without interruption.

I have got the message that the Opposition seriously disagree. They can say that The Irish Times is in the pocket of the Government——

Mr. G. Collins

The man who wrote that article is in somebody's pocket.

Mr. Cunningham

Look at last Saturday's Irish Times.

Mr. Keating

I am making the point that the action was a correct one for a number of reasons.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If Deputies will not allow the person in possession to speak, the Chair will have to allow the Minister in possession the appropriate time and that will take from the time of the final speaker.

Mr. Cunningham

Let him give us his own opinion.

Mr. Keating

I want to indicate the reasons why I believe this was a correct action. It had an important element of selectivity in it. It was suggested that it was ridiculous to argue that the price of petrol should be treated to a particularly large increase because for a considerable time previously there had been no increase.

It is true that since 1969 there was no increase in the price of petrol due to taxation: there were increases for other reasons. Deputy Blaney was particularly withering as to why this should be an argument in favour of a particularly large increase now. The point is that there is an apportioning of wealth among different products and if the increases in particular areas are less than increases in other areas then consumption is directed towards the areas where the increases have been less. The absence of a proportionate increase in petrol was diametrically the opposite thing to what was needed. What was needed was a relative diverting of resources away from petrol and into other things. It is absolutely relevant to quote the experience of the past five years since 1969.

I wish to refer briefly to what the Minister for Finance said in his statement. I am reading from a verbatim account of what the Minister said, as reported in The Irish Times, when talking about past changes in price. The Minister said that although the price of heating oil has risen by well over 100 per cent during the past 12 months the price of petrol to the motorist has risen by less than half that.

It is extremely desirable that there be proportionality between price rises in different sectors of energy. If one wants to have money spent, inescapable non-stretchable resources, on different sectors of energy purchasing then one tries to aim the money towards the areas where it is best spent and aim it away from other areas. There is this element of selectiveness in regard to petrol. I have quoted two economists indicating that it is economically correct particularly to pick out petrol. This has the advantage of specifically picking out something that the economists have directed us towards, and I believe correctly, as being a place where we do two things simultaneously. We can direct consumption away from petrol, we can reduce or stabilise the level of that petrol consumption and we can, simultaneously, raise money. It is wrong to say that there is one or the other objective and that we are advancing one and hiding the other. Both of those are important objectives.

Great play has been made of the matter of whether the consumption of petrol is discretionary or not. A number of speakers have indicated that much petrol consumption is not discretionary and that it is obligatory. This is a sort of simplistic argument because nobody denies that some petrol consumption is discretionary and some is obligatory. Nobody says that all of it is discretionary and that one can totally switch off the use of petrol. We are suggesting that these measures will reduce consumption to 10 per cent below where it would have been if measures were not taken. That is the suggestion and not that the use of motor cars, whether they are "bangers" or any other sort, taking groups of men to work on building sites, is discretionary. Nobody pretends that it is but there is a lot of discretionary motoring.

Oil to produce electricity is not discretionary in the sense that if one wants to produce X units of electricity one has to use a proportionate amount of oil and one's discretion cannot reduce that by 10 per cent. If one wishes to produce a certain amount of energy in the boiler of a factory for necessary work in that factory that is not discretionary. However, whether one drives a little more or a little less, whether one drives a little faster or a little slower, whether one drives a slightly larger or a slightly smaller car—the latter is not discretionary at a given moment but it is discretionary over a period of months and over a period of years— are all discretionary.

It is a completely false antithesis to say that it is utterly discretionary; of course it is not and nobody on this side of the House ever suggested it was. We are suggesting; and this is beyond argument and is recognised anywhere these things have been analysed in the world, that there is a very considerable discretionary element in the use of petrol which is much greater than in the use of fuel oil and much greater than in the matter of the use of coal. Let us not get ourselves lost in trying to quantify exactly what percentage discretionary it is. It is much more than the oil that has to be bought to make electricity. It is not total. We have a nonsense argument about the importance of it to certain people but everybody recognises that there will be hardship for certain people. Everybody recognises that for many petrol users it is not discretionary.

Mr. Tunney

Is it discretion or money?

Mr. Colley

I take it that the Minister agrees that consumption of such things as fuel oil could be reduced without loss of efficiency?

Mr. Keating

Indeed, and I will refer to that in a moment. It has the other advantage of being aimed at an imported raw material. It is not a secret that we have to be deeply concerned about the situation of the balance of payments. It is obvious that we have to be concerned to do anything we can to reduce imports and this is the sector where all of the petrol, even if we only get a discretionary reduction of 10 per cent, is a reduction of imports. An argument can be made to the effect that this is not a very large reduction. If it were more discretionary the reduction would be larger. The fact that we have given an estimate that it will be 10 per cent less than it would have been if nothing had been done is an indication that we only think there is that much margin but that much in the present circumstances, ongoing and in future years, is important.

In a moment I will be making a case which suggests that the role in our economy and in our life style of this approach to petrol use will continue long after any current balance of payments difficulties have gone. The profligate approach we have had and that has existed towards petrol in the western world for decades must come to an end in the interests of the whole future of mankind, the future of the planet, the future of the petro-chemical resources of this planet. We have had false attitudes inculcated by the companies who were concerned to sell as much of the stuff as possible and the Minister for Finance was correct when he said that the era of cheap fuel was coming to an end.

We have to change. Again I should like to refer to the first leader in The Irish Times of the day after the Minister for Finance made his announcement because it recognised the role of waste in the world and the moral role that we all have in a shrinking planet using up finite resources, of taking on an attitude to those resources which is a responsible one and a conservative one with the object of conserving resources which in the past we have used in a ruthless and profligate way. Of course there is a balance of payments aspect in this action but there is also a conservative, a conservation and environmental aspect. If we can change people's attitudes and people's habits we will benefit from that down the decades but we have to recognise that this crisis has brought upon us a need for change which should have come on us anyway. Many of the most concerned people in the world are recognising that our attitude in the past was profligate and must change.

It is also important to say about this action that it does not exist in a vacuum; it is part of a programme. Deputy Colley correctly made reference to the things that can be done. Without ever having indicated that it was an immensely important activity I am pleased with what the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards have been doing in the matter of fuel saving in industry. For a year, immediately the oil crisis started, I, apart from promotion in Dublin, have been trying to promote the IIRS energy-saving activities in Sligo, Galway and Limerick. While it is not an activity that one trumpets it is certainly possible by increased boiler efficiency, by lower working temperatures in work places, provided it is not physically too cold, and by a series of conservation methods to reduce energy consumption by industry. In an efficient productive process such as the making of electricity, one cannot until one has completely different machinery, get more electricity out if one does not put more oil in In factories there is room for fuel efficiency and this work has been very actively pursued, if not with a very high profile in the public Press certainly with a high profile in industrial circles. This has been done in direct contact with industrialists, with the CII and with the IIRS for 12 months and, in many cases, has produced dramatic advances.

I want to speak again—because there has been a mockery made of it—of the effect of the speed limit. We were told that we were absolute lunatics; it was a question of fun; it was a question of giggling that we should introduce a speed limit. The United Kingdom, I understand, tonight, last night or some such time—all right, they are after us for once; often we do things after them—but they have in fact introduced a speed limit of 50 miles per hour.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Mr. Keating

Anyone who can translate what I have just said as not being in favour of jobs is losing contact with the meaning of English. Fortunately, there is a record in this House which people can read and see what was said by Deputies. They will find the Deputy's interjection making a travesty of what I have just remarked, which will make them either conclude that you did not understand it or that you want to distort it. It is not a very useful contribution either way.

Mr. G. Collins

That was why the Government did not want a debate last Wednesday night—we would not have understood it.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Keating

It is true that when the price of petrol rises there is an existing stock of cars in the country and that cannot be changed instantly. Some of them wear out in six months; some of them in six years. But it affects the continuing choice about the sort of motor cars people buy. In a country like ours—with the disturbing statistics of having a shortage of resources to invest in productive industry—between 1967 and 1973 the percentage of cars in the larger categories doubled. We were spending on bigger cars resources that it would be appropriate to our national economy to invest in more productive ways.

Mr. Crowley

The Minister should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Molloy

Why, then, did the Government buy the Mercedes last month?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has had less time than the 30 minutes he is supposed to have, and he should be allowed have it.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Keating

The concentration on Mercedes by Members of the Opposition is very striking because those cars were introduced by the Opposition, misused by the Opposition, and the great argument for retaining them now is that there is equipment, training and experience on the part of the Garda. That has been the argument we are offered for continuing them.

Mr. G. Collins

Nobody will believe the Minister any more.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Keating

Anybody who wants to talk about the image of the Mercedes and who introduced them, who got the maximum political advantage out of them, will know the people have their clear recollections on that.

The basic argument put forward by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, by the Minister for Finance and by other speakers on the Government side for this measure is demonstrably untrue. Is it not a fact that during the past 12 months the price of petrol has increased by 20p per gallon but that consumption did not decrease? Therefore, why must we be subjected to all the platitudes we have had from the Minister for Industry and Commerce who was preceded earlier today by the Minister for Finance, to suggest that an increase now of 15p per gallon will reduce petrol consumption? Why is it being suggested that this will make good boys of us all, that we will use smaller cars, that we will use better our resources, that we will not succumb to the blandishments of the major multi-national companies? What is all this nonsense about? Is it not clear from all that has been happening in the past 12 months that the arguments being put forward now are false? That being so, we are entitled to look at the impact of what is being done, to look at the reasons advanced for it. We are asked to believe that the measure was taken so as to save imports. We are entitled to draw attention to the falsity of that argument and in particular to draw attention to the lack of credibility of the Government in this matter when not alone are they trying to get in such a very substantial amount in additional taxation but when they are a Government which say that in introducing this savage increase in the price of petrol their purpose is to reduce consumption and, consequently, help our balance of payments situation. During the past 12 months when it has been clear to everybody as to what was happening to our balance of payments as a result of the increase in the price of oil, the Government took virtually no steps to deal with the situation. Therefore, they cannot expect to have any credibility in introducing a measure of this kind.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce referred to efforts made by the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards with regard to industry. I am aware of those efforts. They are laudable but they are extremely limited and the Minister knows that better than anybody else. I am sure that he would not for one moment contend that what is being achieved by the institute goes anywhere near what is possible in the way of fuel conservation.

Today Deputy Barrett gave in some detail an outline of how the balance of payments deficit could be reduced by many millions of pounds — perhaps as much as £20 million—without any capital outlay but simply by following the course he recommended, that is of going out and buying on the market, chartering tankers and shipping in here. The Minister for Finance who spoke immediately afterwards dismissed this suggestion as being airy-fairy and spoke of Deputy Barrett knowing of sources of supply which were not known to anybody else. The Minister took this line although the Deputy had named one country that is taking this attitude. It is one matter for the Minister not to be aware of what is the situation but it is another for him not to be honest enough to admit his ignorance. His reaction to Deputy Barrett's proposition adds to the suspicion or, more accurately, I should say the certainty, in the minds not only of the members of this side of the House but of many Deputies on the other side as well as the vast majority of people outside, that this measure has nothing to do with fuel conservation. This measure has a great deal to do with the fact that the Minister finds himself in considerable financial difficulty. If it was this difficulty that led him to bring in this measure, he should have told the House so. I do not say that motorists would accept gladly an imposition of 15p extra per gallon in taxation on petrol but at least they would have understood and, therefore, to some extent have accepted the necessity for the imposition if they had been told by the Minister that it was to deal with a serious financial difficulty but nobody believes what the Minister told us on Wednesday last.

Consequently, the reaction to the Minister's announcement is as bad as anything I have seen for a very long time. The principal reason for this is that people believe that the Minister is trying to hound them, that he is insulting their intelligence. The Minister should understand this because it is a very important reaction from the public to a situation in which the lead should be coming from the Government and should have been coming from them for the past year so as to harness the good will of the people, to harness a sense of working for the Community and to induce by exhortation, by information and in some cases by grants, a direct all-out consciousness and effort on the part of our people to save fuel, not only petrol, but all imported fuel. The Government have not been doing that. The public find now that they are being held up to ransom. They are being told that the increase is to save our balance of payments but, even on the Minister's figures, that is not true.

This is a sorry performance by the Government. Other speakers have mentioned the sort of impact that this measure is having on the lives of the people. Last week I referred to the effect it would have on the cost of living. It is not enough merely to say that the increase will mean a small percentage rise in the cost of living. For very many people a car is essential so that the increase in their cost of living will be far greater than average. It is inevitable that they will include this item in their next wage claim. As a direct consequence of this increase, many will lose their jobs. It is not good enough for the Minister to come in and talk glibly of the increase having a relatively small effect on the cost of living and of its being necessary to save our balance of payments.

It is about time this Government and this Minister learned to treat the people, apart from the Members of this House, with a certain degree of respect. Everybody is not as unintelligent as the Minister seems to think. We know that this Government in areas under their own control have been increasing repeatedly the price of various commodities. Their excuse, the one they have been trying to live on, is "Things are bad around the world and you cannot blame us." However, when it comes to things that are directly under their control the situation is worse than any imported inflation.

I mention, just as examples of the effect of the Government attitude, what they have done with the massive increases in TV licences, in postal charges, in ESB charges, in CIE fares, and now in petrol. These are matters under the Government's direct control, and the message that comes through, as I said the other night, is that the Government have surrendered psychologically in the battle against inflation. To have that situation demonstrated is bad enough, but to have the Government trying to con us into believing that the reasons for what they are doing are to do with the balance of payments is really insufferable.

There has been no real attempt at energy saving on the part of the Government. Deputy Barrett offered here today suggestions which, if implemented, could save at least £20 million on the balance of payments, which could reduce ESB charges without increasing the borrowing of the State, without increasing the price of other commodities, without adding to our cost of living, and it is dismissed as airy-fairy imagining. It is dismissed because the Minister for Finance is not interested. His principal concern, an gad is goire don scornaigh, is to get revenue from wherever he can get it. If it were only because we have an enormous unemployment problem which is getting vastly worse every week there should have been a good enough reason for the Government to hesitate before doing what they did last week.

Is the Minister aware of the consequences of what he is doing, that he is throwing more people out of work, more on top of the 81,000-odd at last count, and it has been going up at 1,500 to 2,000 a week? By direct Government action he is throwing these people out of work. I find it very difficult not alone to understand but to be in any way patient with the kind of things this Government have been subjecting our people to, the mishandling of our economy, and this is a clear example of what has been happening.

Is the Minister aware that for many people, particularly in rural Ireland but not by any means confined to rural Ireland, the car is a lifeline, an absolute necessity, and that there is no public transport available? Does he know that for people in rural areas like doctors, nurses, teachers, post office van drivers, local delivery van drivers, building workers, factory workers, and particularly people in bakeries and that kind of work who have to start very early in the morning, cars are essential? Does the Minister care about the impact of what he is doing on these people and the consequential effects on their employment or the effect which the wage claims they will have to make will have on our economy?

I have had representations from people whose case might not perhaps be so obvious, people who are delivering meals on wheels to the old and sick and are using quite a bit of petrol in doing it. They are resentful at being asked to pay more and more tax, which if refunded to them would be far less than the cost of providing this service if it were done by the health boards. I can only think that the Minister was not concerned about the effect of what he was doing.

Accompanying this whole arrangement we have had the recommendation of a 50 miles per hour speed limit and we heard the Minister for Industry and Commerce talking about that a little while ago, and Deputy Tunney pointed out that he seemed to be telling us that the whole thing was done for safety reasons. Is it not the truth that this whole speed limit is unrealistic, and if it is not unrealistic, if it is effective in saving fuel, why was the speed limit of 50 miles per hour which was in operation taken off this year? What kind of stupid fools are the people supposed to be? It was taken off this year when the Minister for Finance and his colleagues knew the impact on the balance of payments of the increase in the price of oil. If it was effective in reducing the consumption of petrol it should never have been taken off, but it was taken off. Is it not true it was put on now solely as a propping-up operation for the confidence trick which the Minister for Finance has tried unsuccessfully to impose by saying it was done for the balance of payments?

Does the Minister know that if a reduction of the speed limit was to be worthwhile it would have to be 35 or 40 miles per hour. Does he know that a reduction from 60 to 50 miles per hour in a journey of 100 miles will save only .45 of a gallon in an 1100 cc. car and .60 in a 2000 cc. car. When one remembers that 85 per cent of motorists travel at less than 60 miles per hour, according to a survey done by An Foras Forbartha, and when one remembers further that some 200,000 cars are located in urban areas, of which only a relatively small number undertake long journeys does it not become clear that the 50 miles an hour speed limit is mere window dressing? When one considers further the strain on Garda resources, one can only conclude that the 50 miles an hour speed limit imposed by the Government now is irresponsible and should be withdrawn.

We had of course from the Minister for Finance earlier the usual juggling with statistics. He embarked on it by making some disparaging comments about me. He did not try to justify them, but I would not be unduly concerned about that coming particularly as they did from a man whose credibility in regard to statistics and indeed in regard to basic economic management is at an all-time low. He juggled around with the statistics so that he gave us the reverse of the statistics he gave us on Wednesday night in regard to the proportion of our oil imports that come from Whitegate and those that are directly imported. Not content with this, he went on to assume an increase in the consumption of petrol next year in order to produce a figure of a saving for the balance of payments of £7 million.

Why did he stop at next year? He could have gone on for three or four years. If he had gone on to four years he could have said: "That will cancel out the tax I am getting in." The Minister was of course simply trying to find some desperate way to justify the enormous discrepancy between what he said is £27½ million tax he will collect — and what we all know will be considerably more — and the amount which would be saved for the balance of payments. With all his juggling, he could produce a sum of only £7 million.

We, on this side of the House, argue that we could save far more for the balance of payments by approaching the matter on a comprehensive basis. This Government have demonstrated repeatedly in the past year that they have neither the will nor the knowledge to tackle the energy problem and its impact on the economy. What we suggested can be done overnight. We can give up hope of any effective action from this Government in regard to our balance of payments. Nothing they have done has demonstrated any ability to approach that problem with any degree of rationality.

As I pointed out—and this is a basic flaw in any argument we have had from the Government side—there has been an increase of 20p per gallon in the price of petrol, but there has not been an increase in consumption. Therefore the argument we have heard from the Government side simply falls to the ground. We did of course have the nonsense about leakage across the Border. Even the Minister indicated today that that was simply a red herring which should not have been introduced.

We are entitled to ask why this was done now. After all, the budget is only a month away. I suggest the reason is that the Minister for Finance must be very badly stuck for revenue. If he is in that position, the country and the House are entitled to know what is happening and why he has to do it a few weeks before the budget. It does mean a substantial amount of revenue in those few weeks. If that is the reason the Minister had to increase the price of petrol on Wednesday last, that is another problem he must face and answer, and he should not try to fool people into believing that it has anything to do with the balance of payments.

The Leader of this party referred to what was done in this House last Wednesday as sleight of hand. On another occasion there was a phrase which might be even more appropriate——

Mr. G. Collins

A Fine Gael back-bencher.

Mr. Molloy

The Minister has at least one backer.

Mr. Molloy

Did he get the gallon of petrol?

Mr. Colley

I am glad to see Deputy B. Desmond here tonight. He would not join us on television the other night.

Mr. Power

His engine is labouring.

Mr. Colley

As I was saying, in the immortal words used by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach on another occasion, it might be more appropriate to describe what was done here on Wednesday night as a trick-of-the-loop operation.

The Control of Imports Act, 1957, was prepared by a former Coalition Government and introduced by a former Fianna Fáil Government for the purpose of enabling protection to be given quickly to Irish industry which was under pressure from imports. That was the purpose for which it was brought in and used until now when it was abused by this Government. It was done in such a way that major taxation of this kind could be brought and imposed without a debate or vote in this House. If the abuse of that Act were to be followed again by this Government, and if they were to continue on the road on which they have embarked, it would be clear that the control of taxation by Parliament, which was a hard-won right fundamental to parliamentary democracy, that right would be endangered. If this Government continue on that road they will have a revolution on their hands. This is a fundamental matter and this Government should be ashamed of what they did the other night. The consequences to democracy could be enormous. My feeling is that they will not try it again. They have probably learned that lesson, though they learned few.

We have demonstrated that the purpose of this measure is not to conserve the balance of payments, and if that is its purpose it will not work; that the consequence will be to increase the cost of living in some cases very substantially and throw people out of work; that the overall effect on many people will be severe hardship; that the imposition of the speed limit makes absolutely no sense; and that the Government have demonstrated their belief earlier this year that it made no sense when they took it off. Before it is too late we call on the Government to take this imposition off the cost of living.

There seems to be some idea that we should not have the cheapest petrol in Europe. Why not? It is nonsense to suggest that by not having the cheapest petrol in Europe we are conserving fuel and saving the balance of payments. We are not. Let us take this off before we do more damage to our economy, employment, and the cost of living. If the Minister for Finance needs money let him say so. Let him bring in his budget and the appropriate measures to deal with the problems he is facing. Then let us argue on their merits. Please do not persist in this ill-judged measure — ill-judged from the point of view of the economy, the Parliament and its importance in a democracy.

Even at this late stage I ask the Government to demonstrate that they have a little sense by withdrawing the imposition of 15p per gallon on petrol and this ridiculous 50 mph speed limit. If they are not prepared to do so, there is nothing much we can do beyond what we have done until the time comes — in the not too distant future, I hope — when the people will get a chance to give their verdict, a verdict, I suggest, which will be far harsher than any that has been heard from this side of the House.

Question put: "That the amendment be made."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 63.

Tá

Barry, Richard.
Begley, Michael.
Belton, Luke.
Belton, Paddy.
Bermingham, Joseph.
Bruton, John.
Burke, Dick.
Burke, Joan T.
Burke, Liam.
Byrne, Hugh.
Cluskey, Frank.
Collins, Edward.
Conlan, John F.
Coogan, Fintan.
Cooney, Patrick M.
Corish, Brendan.
Costello, Declan.
Coughlan, Stephen.
Creed, Donal.
Crotty, Kieran.
Desmond, Barry.
Desmond, Eileen.
Dockrell, Henry P.
Dockrell, Maurice.
Donegan, Patrick S.
Donnellan, John.
Dunne, Thomas.
Esmonde, John G.
Finn, Martin.
Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Governey, Desmond.
Griffin, Brendan.
Harte, Patrick D.
Hegarty, Patrick.
Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
Jones, Denis F.
Kavanagh, Liam.
Keating, Justin.
Kelly, John.
Kenny, Henry.
Kyne, Thomas A.
L'Estrange, Gerald.
Lynch, Gerard.
McDonald, Charles B.
McLaughlin, Joseph.
McMahon, Larry.
Malone, Patrick.
Murphy, Michael P.
O'Brien, Fergus.
O'Connell, John.
O'Donnell, Tom.
O'Leary, Michael.
O'Sullivan, John L.
Pattison, Seamus.
Reynolds, Patrick J.
Ryan, John J.
Ryan, Richie.
Spring, Dan.
Staunton, Myles.
Taylor, Frank.
Thornley, David.
Timmins, Godfrey.
Toal, Brendan.
Tully, James.
White, James.

Níl

Allen, Lorcan.
Andrews, David.
Barrett, Sylvester.
Blaney, Neil T.
Brady, Philip A.
Brennan, Joseph.
Breslin, Cormac.
Brosnan, Seán.
Browne, Seán.
Brugha, Ruairí.
Burke, Raphael P.
Callanan, John.
Calleary, Seán.
Carter, Frank.
Colley, George.
Collins, Gerard.
Connolly, Gerard.
Gogan, Richard P.
Haughey, Charles.
Healy, Augustine A.
Herbert, Michael.
Hussey, Thomas.
Kenneally, William.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lalor, Patrick J.
Lemass, Noel T.
Leonard, James.
Lynch, Celia.
Lynch, Jack.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacSharry, Ray.
Meaney, Tom.
Crinion, Brendan.
Cronin, Jerry.
Crowley, Flor.
Cunningham, Liam.
Davern, Noel.
de Valera, Vivion.
Dowling, Joe.
Fahey, Jackie.
Farrell, Joseph.
Faulkner, Pádraig.
Fitzgerald, Gene.
Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
Flanagan, Seán.
French, Seán.
Gallagher, Denis.
Geoghegan, John
Gibbons, James.
Molloy, Robert.
Moore, Seán.
Murphy, Ciarán.
Nolan, Thomas.
Noonan, Michael.
O'Kennedy, Michael.
O'Leary, John.
O'Malley, Desmond.
Power, Patrick.
Timmons, Eugene.
Tunney, Jim.
Walsh, Seán.
Wilson, John P.
Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.

Question declared carried.

Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 60.

Tá

Barry, Richard.
Begley, Michael.
Belton, Luke.
Belton, Paddy.
Bermingham, Joseph.
Bruton, John.
Burke, Dick.
Burke, Joan T.
Burke, Liam.
Byrne, Hugh.
Cluskey, Frank.
Collins, Edward.
Conlan, John F.
Coogan, Fintan.
Cooney, Patrick M.
Corish, Brendan.
Costello, Declan.
Coughlan, Stephen.
Creed, Donal.
Crotty, Kieran.
Desmond, Barry.
Desmond, Eileen.
Dockrell, Henry P.
Dockrell, Maurice.
Donegan, Patrick S.
Donnellan, John.
Dunne, Thomas.
Esmonde, John G.
Finn, Martin.
Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Governey, Desmond.
Griffin, Brendan.
Harte, Patrick D.
Hegarty, Patrick.
Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
Jones, Denis F.
Kavanagh, Liam.
Keating, Justin.
Kelly, John.
Kenny, Henry.
Kyne, Thomas A.
L'Estrange, Gerald.
Lynch, Gerard.
McDonald, Charles B.
McLaughlin, Joseph.
McMahon, Larry.
Malone, Patrick.
Murphy, Michael P.
O'Brien, Fergus.
O'Connell, John.
O'Donnell, Tom.
O'Leary, Michael.
O'Sullivan, John L.
Pattison, Seamus.
Reynolds, Patrick J.
Ryan, John J.
Ryan, Richie.
Spring, Dan.
Staunton, Myles.
Taylor, Frank.
Thornley, David.
Timmins, Godfrey.
Toal, Brendan.
Tully, James.
White, James.

Níl

Allen, Lorcan.
Andrews, David.
Barrett, Sylvester.
Blaney, Neil T.
Brady, Philip A.
Brennan, Joseph.
Breslin, Cormac.
Brosnan, Seán.
Browne, Seán.
Brugha, Ruairí.
Callanan, John.
Fahey, Jackie.
Farrell, Joseph.
Faulkner, Pádraig.
Fitzgerald, Gene.
Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
Flanagan, Seán.
French, Seán.
Gallagher, Denis.
Geoghegan, John.
Gibbons, James.
Gogan, Richard P.
Haughey Charles.
Healy, Augustine A.
Herbert, Michael.
Hussey, Thomas.
Kenneally, William.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lalor, Patrick J.
Leonard, James.
Calleary, Seán.
Carter, Frank.
Colley, George.
Collins, Gerard.
Connolly, Gerard.
Cronin, Jerry.
Crowley, Flor.
Cunningham, Liam.
Davern, Noel.
de Valera, Vivion.
Dowling, Joe.
Lynch, Celia.
Lynch, Jack.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacSharry, Ray.
Meaney, Tom.
Molloy, Robert.
Moore, Seán.
Murphy, Ciarán.
Nolan, Thomas.
Noonan, Michael.
O'Kennedy, Michael.
O'Leary, John.
O'Malley, Desmond.
Power, Patrick.
Timmons, Eugene.
Tunney, Jim.
Walsh, Seán.
Wilson, John P.
Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies, Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.

Question declared carried.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.55 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 11th December, 1974.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 10 Dec 1974

Petrol Price Increase: Motion.

Deputies

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 10 Dec 1974