Committee on Finance. - Minister for Supplies (Transfer of Functions) Bill, 1945—Second and Subsequent Stages. – Dáil Éireann (12th Dáil) – Wednesday, 27 Jun 1945

Committee on Finance. - Minister for Supplies (Transfer of Functions) Bill, 1945—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

I move:—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

This is a Bill to wind up the Department of Supplies and to transfer the powers and functions of that Department to the Department of Industry and Commerce. I made it clear, when referring to this Bill on the Estimate for the Department of Supplies, that its introduction is not because there is any appreciable easement in the general supply position. The present indications are that it will be necessary to continue all existing rationing schemes for some time, probably for at least another year, and possibly longer in the case of some commodities. These functions of the Department of Supplies will be functions of the Department of Industry and Commerce in the future.

When the Department of Supplies was set up at the beginning of the emergency, the intention was to terminate its existence as soon as the supply conditions would permit. Even though there has as yet been no substantial change in the general supply situation, it is believed that not merely can the Department be wound up safely, but that there will be certain advantages resulting from the amalgamation of its functions with those of the Department of Industry and Commerce. To an extent that we had not altogether foreseen, it has now become clear that, with the cessation of hostilities in Europe and the gradual return to more normal conditions, supply problems are tending to become more and more closely related to the question of post-war development and other considerations of general policy which are properly the concern of the Department of Industry and Commerce. It is considered, moreover, that the amalgamation of the two Departments should lead to greater expedition and efficiency in these circumstances and also to economies in staff. As it is desirable that, when two Government Departments are being amalgamated, a date should be chosen which would be convenient so as to reduce to a minimum any dislocation which may be caused, it is provided in Section 2 of the Bill that the amalgamation will not take place on the date of the passing of the Bill, but on a date to be fixed later by Order to be made by the Government. Sections 3 and 4 are the most important sections of the Bill. Section 3 provides for the transfer of the functions of the Minister for Supplies and for the abolition of his office. Section 2 of the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1939, created the Minister for Supplies as a corporation sole and constituted the Department of Supplies. The Minister for Supplies is therefore a corporate body and, having transferred all his powers, duties and functions to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Section 3 proceeds to say that his office is abolished, which is the draftsman's way of saying that the corporation which he constitutes is liquidated.

Section 4 transfers to the Department of Industry and Commerce the administration and business of the public services allocated to the Department of Supplies. That section is necessary because of the existence of Section 3 of the Ministers and Secretaries Act of 1939, which made provision for the allocation of functions to the Department of Supplies. These functions will pass automatically to the Department of Industry and Commerce on the appointed day under Section 4 of the Bill. Section 5 deals with the question of the Estimates for the current year. The sum of £5,350,059 has been provided in this year for the office of the Minister for Supplies including the payment of certain subsidies and Grants-in-Aid. The principal items included are the Vote of £3,070,000 for food subsidies, £1,433,000 for fuel subsidies and Grants-in-Aid to the Turf Development Board of £640,000. I think it is quite clear that the services covered by the Vote will have to continue for the current financial year and that the sum voted for the Department of Supplies will be fully required. The purpose of Section 5 is to provide that these moneys can continue to be used for the purposes for which they were voted by the Dáil.

The remaining Sections 6 to 17 are merely enabling sections to ensure the carrying forward of the powers, duties and functions of the Minister and to the Department of Supplies. Section 7 provides for the reversion to the Minister for Industry and Commerce of functions which devolve on him under various Acts and which were transferred from the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the Minister for Supplies. Section 8 is necessary because Irish Shipping, Limited, and some of the emergency companies are required under their memorandum and articles of association to obtain the consent of the Minister for Supplies before doing certain things.

The property referred to in Section 11 consists of land and buildings bought through voluntary purchase by the Minister for Supplies in connection with the Government turf camp schemes. The principal items are the sites for the camps and buildings for housing the camp workers. Similarly, the reference in Section 12 to land possessed on behalf of the Minister for Supplies relates to land entered into for the production of turf under Government schemes. Section 15 has been included to ensure that proceedings commenced in the name of the Minister for Supplies for the breach of rationing or price control Orders will be continued.

The Bill has one main purpose and all the other provisions follow from that— it is, as the Dáil is aware, to abolish the office of the Minister for Supplies and transfer his powers and functions to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. That change might be of greater significance if there had been separate Ministers in charge of those Departments in the past, but in practice, as the House is aware, the two Departments have worked very closely together. Their headquarters staffs have been housed in the same building and many of the emergency functions of the Department of Supplies were, in fact, performed by the Department of Industry and Commerce, even to an extent that made it impossible for Deputies sometimes to distinguish between the duties of one Department and another. It is clearly desirable that we should get into a situation now in which only one Department would have responsibility for all these functions, as well as the obligation of gradually transferring the organisation set up to handle the problems created by the emergency into an organisation designed to secure the permanent operation and discharge of the functions of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Hughes

I think it is desirable to have this amalgamation and I can fully appreciate what the Minister has stated with reference to it. We are now at the cessation of hostilities and facing up to the problems that have to be tackled in the post-war period, which will require more close relations between these two Departments. The Minister has said that, even during the emergency, it was difficult at times for Deputies to distinguish the fine line which divided the activities of the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Supplies.

Close as were the relations that existed between the two Departments, it is desirable and essential that the amalgamation should take place at this period, in view of the post-war difficulties. I do not suppose that very much economy will be effected at present.

Mr. Lemass

There will be some. There are clearly certain economies which must inevitably follow, but they will not be very substantial in relation to the total cost of both Departments.

Mr. Hughes

I suppose it is the intention to continue to occupy the present building?

Mr. Lemass

Certainly.

Mr. Hughes

I would remind the Minister that, at the earliest possible moment, Departmental intervention in private affairs should be withdrawn. We all realise how essential it was, particularly when goods were in short supply, to ensure an equitable distribution of those supplies, so that poor and rich alike got a fair share of whatever goods were there. That resulted in rationing and quotas. It has resulted in certain hardships, particularly where people were anxious to start in business. Young people were getting married and found it rather difficult to get quotas for new businesses. I have met some people who were anxiously awaiting the time when they could start definitely in business and secure the necessary supplies and I am sure that position applies all over the country. I hope that the Departmental control over these things will be dropped at the earliest possible moment, even if the drop has to be made gradually. I would ask the Minister to give the House an assurance that it is his intention to do that.

Mr. Cogan

The result of the setting up of the Department of Supplies and its present merger with the Department of Industry and Commerce is to extend very largely the powers and duties which the Minister exercises as Minister for Industry and Commerce and to increase greatly the cost of that Department. At the outset of the emergency, the Minister for Industry and Commerce had very considerable powers and a very large and expensive administration. As a result of the amalgamation of these two offices, he to-day has still larger powers and a still more expensive Department under his control. The question of the expense will arise on various Estimates, but the powers which the Minister exercises are sufficiently extensive to be alarming to the ordinary citizen.

Deputy Hughes referred to the hardships on citizens, as a result of the restrictions placed upon them. Many of those restrictions are inevitable as a result of the emergency. I would like to endorse what Deputy Hughes said, that, as soon as the emergency conditions have disappeared, it is to be hoped the Minister will not endeavour to hang on to the powers with which he has been restricting private enterprise.

I should also like an assurance from the Minister that his Department will not continue to exercise the drastic judicial functions which they have exercised and which I have had occasion to criticise. With reference to my criticism of the exercise of those functions, the Minister was inclined to treat the rights of the ordinary citizen as a joke. A citizen who is accused of violating some ministerial regulation and found guilty by a Government Department, is invariably very harshly treated. The Minister may think that it is a joke to have the claims of an ordinary citizen put before this House, but the citizen does not regard it as a joke. I believe that if many of the cases which have been tried in the Minister's Department and dealt with were brought into the District Court they would be dealt with more impartially.

I think it is a very serious thing that this House should find itself endowing the Minister with such far-reaching powers. It is also a serious matter when we have not only a huge Department under the Minister's control, but also a large number of State companies of various kinds which have been established under the Minister's control. Over these companies the Minister exercises a considerable amount of control, and he can exert influence upon them in regard to the manner in which they carry on their business. Those companies are outside the jurisdiction of this House. We cannot inquire into the manner in which they are run. We can only put the blame on the Minister if things go wrong, and we all know that the Minister is fairly expert in side-tracking or meeting any accusations that may be levelled against him.

It is a serious thing that the State should exercise such far-reaching power in relation to the running of various industries without the governing body of the State, that is, this legislative Assembly, having power to inquire into the manner in which the businesses are conducted. There is always the danger that those State companies may be used by any Party in power for the purpose of patronage —to provide jobs for their political adherents. There is not in this case, as there is in the Civil Service, a system of competitive examination or a system of supervision and control such as the Comptroller and Auditor-General exercises over all Government Departments.

I think that is an aspect of this merger of two Departments which the House should take serious note of, because inevitably we must accept the view that the Department of Industry and Commerce will, in the post-war period, be a much more extensive and far-reaching Department than it was before the emergency. I think some means should be found—it may not be possible within the scope of this Bill— so that where subsidiary companies or State created companies are established there will be some way by which this House will have a larger measure of control than it has at present. It should be put completely outside the power of any Government in the future to run these companies in any way for Party advantage.

Mr. McMenamin

This Department is now losing its identity and, as certain things have been said about them on the main Estimate, I think I would be wanting in my duty if I did not pay a tribute to the officers of the Department. I think I can truthfully say that in the six years since the outbreak of the second world war I, probably, of all the Deputies, have been the greatest nuisance to that Department and it would ill become me if I did not put on record my appreciation of the splendid services that have been rendered by the officials there. The things that were said about them when the Estimate for the Department of Supplies was under consideration were of a general character. A lot of very hard things have been said about the officials in an off-hand way. Indeed, quite a lot was said about them during the past five or six years without a proper appreciation of the difficulties that confronted them.

Let Deputies imagine for a moment the manner in which some 2,000 people were collected from various Government Departments. They had not the faintest idea of the duties they were called upon to undertake. They might have been accustomed to files and routine civil service work, but they had absolutely no experience of the type of work they were about to undertake in the Department of Supplies. They were brought together and put in charge of arranging supplies for the whole country. Anybody associated with ordinary business will appreciate the magnitude of the task and the type of problem that confronted this collection of amateurs. I do not use that word in any offensive way. I use it in order to pay a tribute to the fine job they carried out in subsequent years. They made a splendid job of it. During the past six years the number of times when I tortured officials in that Department could scarcely be counted.

I do not like to pay a tribute where it is not deserved, and that would apply particularly to State servants, but these officials were maligned through the years, and I think it is only right that the excellent services they rendered to the State should be appreciated. Perhaps it is not popular for me to defend them, but I am not so lacking in moral courage as that I would not discharge the duty I owe towards a body of officials with whom I have been closely associated. I had my battles with them with regard to meeting the requirements of my constituents. I fought hard about many things and ultimately got them. There were various charges made against those public servants, but I will put it on record, without fear of contradiction, that I do not know any officer of that Department who was not strictly impartial. They were the most honest and impartial men that I could ever wish to be associated with. I tormented them day in and day out, and I fought hard with them for what I thought my constituents were entitled to. I must say that I never asked anything for any of my constituents that I did not think they were entitled to.

Nobody knows the things that were said to the officials better than I and I pay my utmost tribute to the way they discharged their duties. It is quite easy to give out stuff when you have plenty of it, but what these men and women in the Department had to do was to retain in the country the small quantity of stuff available, so that it might be divided equitably amongst the people. That was the task which these officers were confronted with. I know them well. They stuck steadfastly to the duty imposed on them by the Minister and discharged it faithfully and honestly. Considering the desperate limitations under which they had to work in regard to supplies, they did a tremendous job, and I should be wanting in my duty if I did not put that tribute on the records of the House, as I was perhaps one of the greatest nuisances with which the officials had to deal.

My objection is not so much to the Bill itself as to Section 4, which passes over the entire functions of this Department to the Department of Industry and Commerce. I think the Minister will be the first to agree that there are a number of functions exercised by the Department of Supplies which should now, or in the immediate future, be revoked. I need not enumerate them, but it would be a good thing if the rule were run over all these Emergency Powers Orders relating to 101 things—some relating to minor matters, but others of a very restrictive character. I am not disposed to give the Minister his Bill without further information. He has made an ex parte statement that he expects rationing to continue for another 12 months. If this Bill becomes law, it passes the legal powers of the Department of Supplies on to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and I think that some more care should have been taken to review all these Orders, with a view to dropping those which are obsolete or semi-obsolete, of which there are quite a number.

I am very loath to give the Minister the full transfer of all the functions now exercised by the Department of Supplies without an undertaking that these matters will be reviewed. I expect the purpose was one of economy, but that is not quite good enough, when one considers the arbitrary powers which the House gave to the Minister, and which were essential during a period of strict emergency. We have passed from much of that atmosphere now. In my own constituency, boats are very extensively used, and each boat had to get a licence. The Minister has power to issue, or to refuse to issue, or to revoke, a licence, and in many cases licences were properly revoked because the boats were used to carry goods out to American and British ships in Lough Foyle and to carry other goods shorewards.

The American and British boats have now left Lough Foyle and the coast of Donegal, but these Orders still remain and the revocations of licences in respect of some of these boats are still in force. Will these revocations be withdrawn and freedom to operate be given to their owners? Some of them are fishermen and perhaps it was a son who used the boat to take out silk stockings or butter to an American boat and who was caught, with the result that the licence was withdrawn. The revocation of his licence is a very serious hardship for a man who has a couple of hundred pounds invested in a boat for fishing purposes. One could not quarrel with it while the war was on and when the supply position was very serious, but these foreign vessels have now left Lough Foyle, and the Minister should make provision for revoking the Order and cancelling any revocations made.

There are a number of items of that type which should be looked into and the Minister should give a definite undertaking that he will review them at the earliest opportunity. Many of these Orders should not be retained for one hour longer than is necessary. They are very bad for business and nothing but grave emergency can justify them. I should like the Minister, if he does not agree to review them between now and the Final Stages of the Bill, to give an undertaking that he will review these Orders and revoke them at the first opportunity which presents itself.

Mr. Coogan

I welcome the Bill as an indication of decontrol and I sincerely hope the Minister can give the House an assurance that, at the first available opportunity, all this system of licensing control will cease. Undoubtedly the system of quotas, rationing and licences has been a cause of irritation and annoyance to people in trade, but it has also been responsible for many difficult problems in the Department, and I want to compliment the Minister and his officials on the manner in which they did their job during the last five years. We had many criticisms to offer—perhaps because of personal annoyances or irritations—but looking back on the period now, I think they did a marvellous job. They are to be complimented and should get the best thanks of the House for having risen to the occasion as they did.

My personal experience of the Department officials is that, where a citizen had a reasonable problem, the problem was faced by them with consideration, courtesy and with, if you like, every kindness. There were perhaps occasions when hard and difficult things had to be done, but that was necessary in the national interest, and I want to associate myself with Deputy McMenamin's remarks on these lines. If I have any criticism of the Bill, it is that it does not indicate any time when the functions now transferred to the Minister for Industry and Commerce will cease to be exercised by him. It is a matter which we may consider on Committee Stage—that some limit of time ought to be placed upon that Minister's administration of these powers.

The other point on which I should like to have some information is the future of the staffs of the Department of Supplies. A number of men and women were seconded from various Departments in the Civil Service, and will go back to their normal avocations, but I wonder what proposals the Minister has for the temporary staff who may find themselves unemployed as a result of this fusion. I should also like to have some information as to the eventual economies he hopes to effect in the staffing of the new Department. Finally, I think the Minister and his staff are to be congratulated on having achieved success in a very difficult situation. Were it not for the measures they took, this country could not have survived during the war years, and no matter what the citizens had to suffer, the officials of that Department had to suffer also. They had to find new ways of dealing with new problems, and I think that they rose to the occasion in a very striking manner.

Mr. Dillon

I am reminded, Sir, by this discussion of a certain story that used to be told. It relates to William IV of England, who, when he died, was succeeded by his niece, Queen Victoria. She was afterwards married to Prince Albert, who was a parsimonious man, and shortly afterwards he undertook the reform of the administration of Windsor Castle. In the course of his researches, he found that there were being delivered there, every day, 6 dozen lbs. of tallow candles, and that that was the normal perquisite of the cook. On inquiring into that matter, he found that about 62 years previously George II had a cold in his head and his medical attendant prescribed the use of one tallow candle to be rubbed to the bridge of his nose each day, but those in charge of the administration of the Castle at the time suggested that it was beneath the dignity of the King to buy one tallow candle, and so the order went forth to buy 6 dozen pounds of tallow candles a day, and, as a result, 6 dozen lbs. of candles per day were delivered to Windsor Castle for 62 years. Now, Sir, I am afraid that we may fall into the same dilemma as Prince Albert found facing him.

During the last five years, the Department of Supplies has made an immensity of Orders, some of them wise and some of them foolish. I could recapitulate a great number of the foolish ones, but I would particularly refer to the Order in connection with the repair of sacks—an Order which, as far as I am aware, is still the law. The Order provided that no sack could be repaired except in a licensed manufacturer's premises. That meant that if a person tore a bag or sack in a shop in Ballaghaderreen, and if he were to comply strictly with the law, before he took needle and thread to make the repair in that sack or bag, he would have to empty it, consign it to the nearest licensed merchant, probably in Dublin there to be repaired, re-covered and restored, and then returned to him. A good many Orders of that character were made from time to time under the stress and pressure of the emergency, and as a result of there not being time available for mature reflection. Is it unreasonable to ask the Minister, on the occasion of the amalgamation of those two Departments, that he should set aside some members of his staff and direct them to prepare for, say, the first of October, a complete codex of the Orders made by his Department, with a view to having it submitted to the Assistant Secretaries of the Department in order to see which of these Orders might now, with propriety, be repealed? Then you could have a general repeal of all Orders which are non-essential and have the publication, as on a given date, of the Orders or amending Orders that were being retained, with a suitable index to facilitate people, particularly merchants and those engaged in trade, such as manufacturers and distributors, in finding out what the law in relation to their own business happens to be. I make that suggestion now because I appreciate that while the emergency was acute the necessity for a multiplicity of Orders existed and that that, to a certain extent, must remain for some time because circumstances might compel the Minister to alter Orders frequently, and that would make the complication just as great as ever it was before. I foresee that in the time that lies ahead, albeit some Orders may require to be made under the Emergency Powers Act, the necessity to make so many of them and so often will tend to disappear.

The second consideration is this. Up to now, we had two Departments under the one Minister, and those of us who have had some experience of Parliamentary procedure will realise that a Minister can develop some kind of dual character, dependent upon the body of public servants with whom he is working, at a given time. Now, the attitude of the Department of Supplies during the emergency was that the prime essential was to get necessary goods for the community. Under the present Minister's direction, the attitude of the Department of Industry and Commerce has primarily been to protect the Irish manufacturer at almost any cost. Now we have the two Departments coming together and, inevitably, in the transition period from acute world scarcity to comparative plenty, a wide variety of borderline cases are bound to arise, typified by the astonishing case made by Deputy Larkin here last night, which to me seemed to imply that he was in favour of dearer boots for the people so long as the boot manufacturers were protected : that he would not object to that, provided that the boot manufacturers, the employers, are guaranteed their pound of flesh. To hear such a doctrine being promulgated by a Labour representative in this country amazes me. When I think of the price of boots, I ask myself why the unfortunate working man who has to buy a pair of boots and cannot get them here at a reasonable price, should have laid upon him the burden of maintaining the boot industry and the operatives therein, is something that passes my understanding; but problems of that kind will arise. The distributor will ask to have imported 20,000 pairs of boots to meet a demand which the Irish manufacturers are not in a position to meet at the moment. Will the Department of Supplies say, as it would ordinarily have said during the emergency. "Certainly, Go ahead, and more power to your elbow, and we hope you will succeed"? Or will the Department of Industry and Commerce say: "If you can produce a certificate from all the boot manufacturers in Ireland that they cannot meet your requirements, then our Department will put forward your application for consideration by the Revenue Commissioners as to the possibility of a waiver of the tariff normally imposed upon this commodity"? If that is to be the case, a conflict of interest will inevitably rise, and I should like the Minister to tell us what the attitude will be. I suggest that he should tell us now that while scarcity obtains, his attitude to the imports will be : "Bring in whatever you can get, and if we can have an abundance of one necessary commodity, that will serve to mitigate the asperities due to the inevitable scarcity of some other commodity, without which we cannot do, and for which there is no other source to which we can turn."

I can illustrate that fairly well. None of us can expect the Minister to get in unlimited supplies of rubber boots at the present time, because rubber is, obviously, going to be scarce until the Japanese war is over. But, on the other hand, if one could get an abundant supply of superior chrome leather heavy boots, which are very nearly as waterproof, and, conceivably, a corresponding supply of good leggings at prices and of a quality that would protect a working man's leg from his knee to his ankle, you would have a combination which would very materially mitigate the hardships arising from the scarcity of rubber boots. Will the Minister say, in the event of an application being made to him for an extra quota licence and a recommendation to the Revenue Commissioners for a waiver of import duty : "Oh, no, Deputy Larkin's boot operatives and the boot manufacturers do not want me to bring in boots, and you will have to do with whatever boots they can supply you with"? In that situation the working man who has to do drainage work, bog development work, and other work of that kind, will have to go around with a wet trousers flapping round his ankles because he cannot get rubber boots, and he will not be allowed to get the effective alternative that is within his reach but for the tariffs and quotas imposed by our own Government.

I admit freely that price regulation was, is and will for some time continue to be a necessary part of our economic life, but I put it to the Minister, has not the time come to drop price control of a good many luxury commodities where price control is really of no vital importance, but the enforcement of which takes up a great deal of the time of his officers who should be enforcing rigid price control of the essentials? For instance, I read in the newspapers recently that the town of Boyle was thrown into a state of pandemonium because the publicans there increased the price of the bottle of porter from sevenpence to sevenpence halfpenny. It might be all the better for the boys in Boyle if the price of the bottle of stout went up from sevenpence to eightpence.

Mr. Norton

And the working man?

Mr. Dillon

It might be all the better for him, too. The Deputy is not going to intimidate me. For seven or eight years a case was made in this House for a reduction of the duty on whiskey. I am proud to say that I have more intimate personal friends amongst the publicans of Dublin than most Deputies. They are old friends of mine and were old friends of my father. There was not a single occasion on which that matter came before Dáil Eireann that I did not meet a delegation of them downstairs, where we had a cup of tea, etc. I said to them that nothing would induce me to support a demand for a reduction in that duty, because I remember when I was a child seeing country lads leaping sky-high as a result of drinking too much whiskey. Now, since the duty on whiskey was increased you rarely see a drunken man. So far as I am concerned, the higher the price whiskey is in this country the better pleased I will be. I believe it is in the best interests of the public at large. I also want to say that if the price of stout tends to rise, if the price of intoxicating liquors tends to rise, if the price of cigarettes tends to rise and if the price of dances tends to rise—I am not a blue-stocking or a pussy-foot—but if all these things, which are good in their own way and of which I have had my share in my day, become a little more expensive, I am not going to worry about it. If a modest brake is put on the consumptive capacity of boys and men in the matter of tobacco and alcohol, of which I consume my share regularly within the limits imposed by my income, I can see no great harm in it.

If the whole machinery of the State is to be thrown into a state of agitated dismay because the price of porter has gone up from seven pence to eight pence a bottle, that seems to me to be a user of price regulation which was never contemplated by us when we were thinking of controlling the price of bread and the price of raiment for the people. When I consented to price control, I wanted to be sure that a working woman who had to provide for her husband and family would not be rooked when she went out to buy tea, bread, butter, milk, cheese, sugar and clothing for her children and herself, but if his lordship went down town and found that 2/- would purchase only three bottles of stout instead of four well, I think, that he was making a very small contribution to the common weal by the abstention imposed on him. Here, again, I think a little condification might be done. The lists of articles which the Minister's officers are required to supervise might be looked over again. I suggest that, where the Minister finds some commodity which he is bound to admit is one that people can get on without, my inclination is that he should take control off it, and that his officers might be otherwise employed, than in clamping down prices in that way. Supplies of most of those luxury commodities are now becoming sufficiently abundant to make it impossible for people to overcharge for them. When the last ships came in from Lisbon it was most interesting to see how effective competition began to operate. Deputies will excuse me if I illustrate that for them.