Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Nov 1949

Vol. 118 No. 11

In Committee on Finance. - Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1946 (Continuance) Bill, 1949—Second Stage.

The purpose of this Bill is to continue for another year the powers conferred on the Government by the Supplies and Services Act, 1946. There has been a considerable improvement in the conditions which necessitated the passing of the 1946 Act, and it has been found possible in the intervening period, and during the past 12 months, to discontinue many emergency controls. Conditions have not yet, however, improved to an extent which would justify the Government in abandoning the powers conferred by the 1946 Act. The Government are conscious of the undesirability of maintaining these special powers for any longer period than is absolutely necessary and consideration has been given to the possibility of introducing special legislation to provide specifically for controls which seem likely to be required for some time ahead.

One instance which I may mention is the foreign exchange control. The need for a control of that kind is obvious in circumstances where our currency is not freely convertible into other currencies. So long as our foreign exchange resources are limited—particularly as regards the well-known hard currency areas—it is necessary to have control to ensure that the best use is made of these resources for the general good of the community. No system of exchange control can function effectively unless it is comprehensive, because experience has shown that any gaps or weaknesses are quickly discovered and lead to the loss or misuse of foreign exchange which could otherwise have been applied to nationally necessary purposes. The preparation of legislation about exchange control which would replace the transient powers derived from the Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1946, is a rather complicated matter and its introduction has not yet been possible. The exchange control must, however, continue to be operated and the Government and the Minister for Finance must have power to amend or extend the existing Orders to deal with changes in the situation according as they arise. For this reason alone, even if there were no other emergency controls in operation, it would be necessary to maintain for the present the powers conferred by the Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1946.

In fact, although the supply position has improved, there are other emergency controls which it would not be practical to abolish at present.

The supply position in the case of tea, sugar, flour and bread is quite satisfactory and, if there were no other factor to be taken into account, would permit of the derationing of these commodities.

The prices of all these commodities have risen very sharply because of conditions created by the recent war and so that the full impact of these increases will not fall on consumers, very heavy subsidies are paid from the Exchequer; the total bill for which is from £9,000,000 to £10,000,000 in the current financial year. All these commodities were rationed during or immediately after the war on account of scarcity and, though scarcity no longer obtains, it is reasonable that the burden on the taxpayer for subsidies should be restricted. The burden can only be so restricted by the maintenance of rationing and so that no hardships will be inflicted on consumers, especially those in the lower wage groups, the Government have fixed the scales of the rations on a generous basis. The abolition of rationing would involve either the removal of subsidies or the extension of them to cover the full consumption. Such an extension would involve a very substantial increase in expenditure and the Government have decided that the taxpayer should not be required to subsidise consumption above the ration levels; but supplies of flour, tea, and sugar have been made available outside the rations at special prices for those who wish to purchase them.

In the case of petrol, supplies are also adequate but it has been considered undesirable as yet to abolish rationing. Deputies will be aware that there is dollar expenditure involved in obtaining our requirements of petrol and, because of the foreign exchange position, it continues to be necessary to regulate the distribution. The rationing arrangements have been modified very much during the past year and I do not think it can be said that the rationing occasions users any inconvenience worth talking about. A further simplification of rationing will take effect from the 1st January next. It has been the practice, as Deputies are aware, to issue quarterly books of petrol coupons. For the period beginning on the 1st January, books of coupons will be available which will contain coupons for each of the four quarters of the year and these books will be used as far as possible to replace the quarterly books now issued. This modification will have the advantage of facilitating consumers and, at the same time, reducing administrative expenses.

The ration of butter was increased during the year to 8 ozs. per head per week, and production for the current year was the highest for a long time past and no difficulty is anticipated in maintaining the ration at its present level.

Another control which it has been necessary to retain and which it will possibly be necessary to continue for some time at least is the building control. The main limiting factor in building operations at present is shortage of skilled labour. Without a control of some kind there is obviously danger that essential building projects would be held up through a diversion of skilled labour to non-essential work. The same consideration applies though in a less degree to building materials; for example, the cement factories are unable to meet all demands and although there is no control over the distribution of cement as such the building control has the effect indirectly of assuring supplies for essential projects. The operation of the control of building was modified during the year by the removal of local authority and subsidy houses from the scope of the control.

Another control which it is necessary to retain is that of exports. There have been substantial modifications of the scope of this control during the past year according as the supply position of different commodities has improved. But the stage has not been reached at which the power to control exports can be completely abandoned. Deputies will appreciate that this is a type of control in which a high degree of flexibility is desirable. Situations can develop quite suddenly which give rise to shortages or danger of shortage and it is highly desirable that powers should be available to meet them. Deputies are aware that the permitted export of controlled goods is allowed. So far as the Government is concerned, there is no objection to the export of certain goods so long as the goods which are being sent out are removed from export control. It is, however, obvious from the extent to which parcels are being exported that, if the export controls were altogether removed, we would run the risk of shortages at home in the case of goods which are not yet in plentiful supply. In case there are any doubts about the matter, I think it is well to say that no person, unless he has received an export licence, is entitled to send out any goods subject to export control. I want to make it clear also that every step possible will be taken to ensure that no breaches of the regulations occur.

Notwithstanding the overall improvement in supplies, there is still a seller's market in a number of commodities and that market will continue to be there so long as demand is in excess of supply. The maintenance of price control is, therefore, necessary in one form or another. The powers which are given in regard to price control by the 1946 Act have the advantage of enabling frequent adjustments of maximum price control to be made according as the supply position requires such adjustments to be made in the interests of consumers. It is true that a strong case can be made for acquiring powers of price control by permanent legislation, but until the Government has a longer experience of the conditions obtaining and when supplies become more plentiful, it has not been considered desirable to introduce any permanent legislation.

While it is necessary to seek approval of the Dáil for the retention of the powers conferred by the 1946 Act, it has been and will continue to be the policy of the Government to abandon emergency controls as soon as they can be abandoned. It is the practice to review the operation of each control periodically with a view to seeing whether it can be abandoned or, if not, whether it can be modified. A special survey was made at my instance during the course of the year of the emergency controls still in operation in order to make sure that the periodical reviews had been effective. An indication of the extent to which the policy of removing or relaxing controls has been pursued may be gathered from the fact that the rationing schemes for soap and margarine were abolished; non-subsidised flour of 75 per cent. extraction was made available and flour and bread confectionery made from it were removed from rationing; control of the distribution of kerosene and fuel oil was also abolished; the arrangements for the rationing of petrol substantially modified; restrictions on the use of bread and flour with meals in restaurants were removed; and, as I have already mentioned, local authority and subsidy houses were omitted from building control; the rationing of cocoa Order was revoked; restrictions on a number of other commodities were also revoked or modified. The list of goods removed from export licensing control is too long to read to the House, but I may say that it covers no less than 75 groups of articles. In the case of tea, it became necessary during the year to modify the rationing arrangements so as to ensure that there would be no loss of subsidy. Tea and sugar were made available for sale outside the rations, but not at the subsidised prices. A concession was also made which allowed new entrants to the retail tea and sugar trade to obtain licences. Facilities are also available for the licensing of new wholesalers in these commodities.

Prices Orders which were in existence in respect of a number of commodities, including such things as oatmeal, canned fish, rice, maize meal, paper, footwear and timber, were revoked. It is also the intention, as Deputies are aware, to remove the control on the purchase of timber from 31st March next. In addition, the number of Emergency Powers Orders still in force has been brought up to date and a list will shortly be on sale for the public at the Stationery Office. The list is too long for me to read to the House. It deals with a variety of Orders too complicated to mention now, but if Deputies have any specific questions to ask I shall give them the information they require when replying.

The Parliamentary Secretary knows that we have given very careful consideration to the question as to whether this Bill should or should not receive an unopposed passage. If we have come tentatively to the conclusion that we can assent to the enactment of the Bill for another year, it must not be taken from that that we are not completely dissatisfied with the failure of the Government to transfer into more permanent legislation whatever remains of these emergency powers which it desires to have continued. The Supplies and Services Act stemmed from the Emergency Powers Act passed at the beginning of the war. That Act conferred powers upon the Government to take measures by way of Government decree or Ministerial Order to do various things, including the provision and control of supplies and services essential to the life of the community. The Supplies and Services Act, itself, confines the power which it gives the Government in relation to supplies to commodities which are essential to the life of the community. Many of the Orders made under this Act by the Minister and the Government may relate to commodities worthy of that description but very many of them do not. It could be argued that it is an abuse of the powers conferred upon the Government by this Act to use it for controlling the supplies or controlling the prices of commodities which are, in no sense of the term, essential to the community.

We had hoped in 1947 to secure the enactment of legislation which would have gone a long way, if not the whole way, towards putting price control upon a permanent and more satisfactory basis than it is now under temporary legislation. That Bill had not been enacted when the change of Government took place and the incoming Government has done nothing to alter the present position of the law in regard to price control. They are still continuing to exercise the control under the Supplies and Services Act— an emergency Act which is expressed to give them powers only in relation to essential commodities. I think it is more than time the Government took action to dispense with these emergency powers in relation to price control and other matters. I put price control first because it is a subject upon which we have had debates in the past. It is a subject upon which the members now forming the Government frequently expressed themselves, when they were in opposition, for the purpose of urging the need for new legislation—legislation of a permanent kind which would take some of the arbitrary powers which the Minister now possesses from his hands and give them to some other authority. Not merely has the legislation which was partially enacted in 1947 not been proceeded with, but nothing has been done. At the end of two years of Coalition Government the Parliamentary Secretary asks for a renewal of these emergency powers upon the ground that they are still necessary. Price control powers are still necessary but they do not have to be obtained and obtained under this Act. If the Minister or the Government would exert themselves they could produce here and I think should produce before this time next year, proposals for permanent legislation because it is to be assumed that we will require here in our circumstances some machinery for price control permanently.

I do not agree that the necessity for maintaining exchange control alone justifies the continuation of the Supplies and Services Act. I cannot see that there is any difficulty in transferring to another temporary Bill the provisions of the Supplies and Services Act relating to that matter nor would the doing of it in any way diminish the powers now possessed by the Government or interfere with their flexibility. I want, therefore, to emphasise that if we agree to the enactment of this Bill and the continuation of the Supplies and Services Act for another year it is in the expectation that before this time next year effective action will have to be taken to enact whatever permanent legislation is required to continue these powers into the future or to dispense with whatever other controls which are not to be maintained on a permanent basis. In that connection, it is perhaps appropriate on this Bill to ask the Government for a declaration of their intentions concerning the duration of the emergency in the legal sense. As the Deputies know, the powers which the Government exercised during the war, the extra constitutional powers, were effective because the House passed a resolution under the appropriate Article of the Constitution after the commencement of hostilities in Europe. That resolution has never been revoked. I think it is true to say that none of the legislation now in operation and no Act of the Government in recent years depends for its validity upon that resolution. If there is any reason why the state of emergency should be still kept officially in existence, we should be informed of it. If there is no reason for keeping that state of emergency in official existence then the necessary resolution should be produced to the Dáil.

I want also to express considerable dissatisfaction with the way in which the powers of price regulation conferred upon the Government by the Supplies and Services Act were used during the past year. So far as I can make out, from a study of the numerous Orders made a new and rather interesting technique is being applied. When prices are falling, in any event, the Minister makes a new Order fixing a lower maximum price for the goods concerned.

When prices are rising, in any event, he withdraws control altogether. Deputies will have seen that happen only quite recently in regard to the price of whiskey. The Minister revoked his powers to control the price of whiskey and the price went up. They saw it happen earlier in relation to bacon. There was a price control Order in existence. It was revoked and the price went up although, apparently, the Parliamentary Secretary has no official information in regard to that. I saw it happen in regard to footwear. There was a price control Order in existence; it was revoked and the price went up. I saw it happen in regard to biscuits. Every time, apparently, it seems inevitable that the Minister, if he keeps the powers of control, will have to sanction a higher price and take the public odium of doing so, he revokes the power and lets the price go as it likes. In that way, most of the Orders which are being kept in force relate only to commodities the prices of which are relatively stable or likely to fall.

Whenever we hear nowadays that some additional commodity is going to be released from price control we know the price is going to be put up. When useful action could be taken to prevent prices rising, there have been instances where the Minister failed to act. I mention the case of eggs. I am interested in the decision of the Minister not to attempt to control the price of eggs during the recent period of scarcity. I may confess to the Dáil that during many years when I was Minister I had frequent arguments with my colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, during periods of egg scarcity, as to whether it was desirable to control prices or not.

There could be a point of view expressed, naturally the point of view of everyone concerned with the interests of agricultural producers, that prices should not be controlled, that the effect of control would be to accentuate scarcity and that as the period of scarcity was in each year of limited duration, the market should be allowed to regulate itself. It was contended that even if prices did rise, the effect would be to increase the flow of supplies to the market. Against that was the view which I advanced, a view which I think was ultimately accepted practically on every occasion by the Government, that it was very problematical if the absence of control would increase supplies in a period of genuine scarcity and that there was an advantage to the consumer in keeping control in operation.

You never controlled eggs.

And they went to £1 a dozen.

During the war years the price of eggs was controlled.

And they went under the counter.

That is precisely the point. The Parliamentary Secretary is contending that because we controlled the price they went under the counter, in other words supplies tended to disappear from the market. Our experience this year has shown that that clearly is unsound because eggs were not controlled in price, prices rose very high and still there was a scarcity. Why did the price rise? It rose because during the period of scarcity wholesalers who were in the trade competed with one another in order to get supplies for themselves and to maintain the flow to their customers. If the Government had acted at the right time by imposing control, then the scarcity would have been no more severe than it was and the price would have been less.

Like the bacon which disappeared altogether.

Bacon did not disappear.

It nearly did.

The Parliamentary Secretary's historical knowledge is a little bit inaccurate.

A Deputy

There was very little bacon when you were in power.

There was far more bacon during most of the war years than there was last year.

What about this year?

Let me say this to Deputies opposite. Is it not about time that they ceased setting as the limit of their achievement what Fianna Fáil was able to do during the world crisis? I am always amused by this contention that it is a matter of credit for the Government that four years after the war has ended there is more bacon than there was during the war, better rail services or some other such improvements. That improvement would have taken place if we had a Government of stuffed dummies.

You are calling yourself names.

The world crisis was worse in 1946 and 1947 than when activities were in progress. What I am saying is: "Set yourselves some higher standard than the level of supplies or activities which we were able to maintain during the war." We think we did very well during the war and we regarded that as the best that could be done in difficult circumstances. The supply of bacon has improved and if the Minister for Agriculture stays in America long enough, it will improve still further.

If Deputy Smith stays out long enough we will soon have a pig trade.

However that is a side line. What I want to say to the Parliamentary Secretary is that the price of eggs rises to astronomical heights during a period of scarcity because of his failure to control prices. If he had controlled prices he could have maintained precisely the same supply with considerable advantage to the consumer. At no time during the war, did the price of eggs rise to as high a figure as this year.

They rose to 10/- a dozen during the war.

May I ask for a better explanation than we have been given as to why rationing has been maintained for many commodities? Everybody knows that petrol rationing is a farce. Is that not correct? Every Deputy knows that petrol rationing is ridiculous at the present time. There is no motor-car owner in the country who has not got coupons to spare. Why, then, is the Department going to the expense and the trouble of maintaining an elaborate organisation to dole out petrol coupons when there is enough petrol to enable supplies to be made freely available? I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary that we are rationing petrol now merely to keep the machinery of rationing in working order, that he foresees the possibility, not next year but at some future time, of petrol having to be rationed on a more restricted basis and that against that possibility we have this elaborate organisation unnecessarily at the present time. Did I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to say that we are going to have a full year's coupons in one book next year? Is it going to convenience any motor-car user to take that round with him every time he uses his car? If there is a more sensible reason for rationing petrol at present, what is it? It seems to me that for some reason the Parliamentary Secretary is not being frank with the Dáil concerning petrol rationing.

I said there was a dollar content in petrol.

Are we to understand from that that it is anticipated that there will be less petrol next year?

It is not anticipated.

Against the contingency that at some time petrol will become scarce again we keep rationing in operation now. I can see the administrative mind at work there—more anxious to avoid the trouble of having to recreate the rationing organisation in a hurry at some later date rather than effect economies now. I am quite sure that the officers of the Department of Industry and Commerce who are now occupied with this farcical business of petrol rationing could be put to far more useful purposes. Why are we rationing bread, tea, sugar, butter? There is no scarcity of these commodities.

It is again necessary to refer here to the provisions of the Act under which that rationing has been maintained. Ministers were given power to control supplies of these commodities if they were scarce and if it was essential to the life of the community that that control should be exercised. We know there is enough bread, tea, sugar and butter available to enable rationing to be abolished but it is not being abolished for a financial reason, because the Government has inaugurated this differential price system under which some portion of available commodities are subsidised in price and the balance is available for those who can afford to pay a much higher price. That may be a good policy or a bad policy. I do not want to argue that at the moment, but I do say that the implementation of that policy under the Supplies and Services Act is an abuse of the Act. If the Government wish to perpetuate that policy, then there is an obligation on them to come to the Dáil with specific proposals for legislation designed to achieve it.

I dislike this system of differential prices. It is not necessary to maintain rationing just because prices are subsidised. The prices of some of these commodities were subsidised before they were rationed. The price of butter was, in fact, subject to Government control both in regard to sales at home and abroad, to levies and to subsidies.

The production, which is a different thing.

It is quite practicable to abolish the rationing of these commodities and still subsidise them. The subsidy to the bread prices is affected by regulating the price of wheat and the whole of the available supplies of imported wheat are canalised through Grain Importers, Limited, a Government operation by which the subsidy can be made up. The same applies to sugar and to butter and at present it applies to tea, although personally I have a desire to see a restoration of the situation in which tea would be again available as it was before the war in varying quantities at varying prices. The present system necessitates the bulking of all tea and its sale at a uniform price or prices. I think also that, if we are to make further progress in our efforts to direct the trade in tea from the countries of origin to this country, to eliminate as we tried to do in the years immediately after the war reliance upon the British tea market, then we must speed up the restoration of the tea trade to what con be described as normal conditions, conditions approximating to those that existed before the war.

There is no reason why we should ration bread except for this purpose of making available supplies of a theoretically better quality at a higher price—double the price, in fact—to those who need it. That scheme has, however, been largely a failure. The public demand for that type of bread is nil and most of the larger bakeries are not using the unsubsidised flour. It has, however, been imposed compulsorily upon the confectionery trade, with the effect of increasing confectionery costs and reducing the consumption of flour confectionery. I wonder what the relation of the saving in the subsidy is to the cost of administering the bread ration, and whether there has been a gain to the Exchequer to the extent asserted by the Minister for Finance.

In the case of sugar, not merely is there free sale at a higher price above the ration, but a completely uneconomic price is being charged to manufacturers of sugar confectionery. They are being taxed in the price of sugar for the purpose of reducing the cost of the subsidy. The effect of that tax has been, not merely to increase the price of jams and other forms of sugar confectionery, but seriously to interfere with the possibility of developing an export trade in these commodities, a possibility which did exist, at any rate, a short time ago, although I cannot say from personal knowledge whether it exists now.

The same is true of butter. We must assume that there is enough butter to enable butter rationing to be done away with, because the Minister for Agriculture was promising early this year that before it ended we would be exporting butter. Why then is butter rationing still continued? The powers conferred on the Government by the Supplies and Services Act were not intended to be used for the purpose of controlling these commodities on any other grounds except scarcity and the importance of that control to the life of the community.

It may be necessary, but I am becoming increasingly doubtful of the utility of maintaining control over building activities. That system of control now in operation was inaugurated in the Department of Industry and Commerce in my time and was designed to concentrate the available supplies of materials and the available skilled labour upon the production of houses by local authorities or houses of the kind to which the Housing Acts applied. I know that criticism was expressed at the fact that, in the early stages of that control, licences were given fairly freely for the building of houses of a better type or for other forms of building activities. I think it is no harm to mention here that the reason why that policy was followed— it was explained in a White Paper issued to the Dáil—was that after the war, when building activity again became possible on an enlarged scale, it was found that the private builder was able to swing into action a lot more speedily than the local authority. That is easy enough to understand. The private builder was largely responsible to no one but himself and he based his plans upon his knowledge of his own capacity, financial or otherwise. The local authority had to proceed in accordance with the routine procedure of getting the necessary sanction for the expenditure and the plans it proposed to implement. It did happen, therefore, that during the first year of control the output of houses by local authorities did not much exceed half the total production that year. If we had attempted to use the power of control to restrict the production of a better type of houses by the speculative builder or private enterprise at a time when the local authorities were not ready to start, the effect would have been to have forced into unemployment and, therefore, into emigration a considerable proportion of the existing labour supply. We, therefore, deemed it good policy to keep up the maximum activity in the building trade, hoping by that means to retain in the country the building workers who were here and to attract back those who emigrated during the war so that, when the local authorities were ready to carry out activities on a full scale, they would be facilitated in every way.

Despite statements which have been made to the contrary, I want to assert that at no time from the commencement of control over building activities did any local authority ever fail to secure by return of post the necessary licence to commence operations.

Why were the local authorities not ready to commence operations?

I have explained what I think is the reason. A local authority, in order to start building, has to go through various proceedings before it can clear the site, prepare plans, and before the plans are finally approved of and the final arrangements fixed up.

It had to have the skilled tradesmen and the cement which you allowed to go to the speculative builder.

What I am saying is that if we had not allowed speculative building activity to begin at that period the local authorities could not have absorbed the labour because they were not ready, and the risk was that those unemployed building workers would have to emigrate in greater numbers. By keeping the activity at full pitch, we were able to say, and did say, to the local authorities: "Expand your activities at the maximum rate and be sure of this, that as you expand, we will limit other activities so as to ensure that you will be fully facilitated." I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share