The matter before the Dáil is the Bill to continue for another year the Supplies and Services Act. Yesterday I queried the use made by the Government of the powers conferred upon them by that Act. While it may not be, in our view, desirable to withhold these powers from the Government or to oppose the enactment of this continuing Bill for another year, nevertheless our dissatisfaction with the use of the powers is such that we trust that by this time next year either many of the Orders made under the Act will have been repealed or the powers required by the Minister on a permanent basis will have been obtained under permanent legislation. So far as the public is aware, the power given by the Act to the Minister, the power to regulate the supplies and prices of commodities essential to the community, has been used or abused mainly in relation to foodstuffs. We are, therefore, obliged on this Bill to consider whether we must not express our dissatisfaction with the operation of price control and the continuation of rationing, as well as with the other manifestations of the Ministerial power contained in various Orders published during the year.
I mentioned yesterday that it is our view that it is highly unsatisfactory that the power of price control should continue to be exercised under emergency legislation; that the time has long since passed when a permanent Act to provide machinery for price control should have been submitted to the Dáil. Such a Bill was submitted in 1947 and passed Second Reading, but got no further. It was killed by the present Government and nothing has been done since. Although the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in reply to a parliamentary question, stated that it was his policy to apply official control, whenever necessary, to the price of essential materials, I assert that the record of the year has shown the policy of the Minister to be to abolish price control whenever it was obvious that higher prices would have to be sanctioned and to maintain it only where it was unnecessary— where prices are stable or falling. I instanced a number of commodities of a general character which have been released from Ministerial control in regard to price during the year, in each case as a prelude to an increase in price. Footwear, bacon, whiskey, biscuits, canned fish, and a number of other commodities increased in price immediately following the relinquishment of the power of control by the Minister, and I assert that the Minister relinquished his power of control and allowed the price to rise rather than take the responsibility for sanctioning an increase in price. The only Orders which were kept in existence were those which were of least importance because they related to commodities that were not likely to rise in price. Many of them were, in fact, falling in price.
I queried also the question of continuing rationing. I will not deal again with petrol. Every Deputy knows that petrol rationing is a farce, that there is not merely ample petrol to meet all the requirements of vehicle users, but that in fact the supply is so excessive that nobody has any difficulty in getting petrol with or without coupons, although probably everyone has enough coupons to purchase all the petrol he wants. I want to be told why an elaborate system of rationing is being kept in existence, with a number of officials checking and issuing coupons when there appears to be no obvious necessity for it.
The same applies in the case of bread. It has been suggested that the maintenance of bread rationing arises because of the decision of the Government to put on sale a lower extraction flour at a higher price than the subsidised supplies. It is, however, I think, in the knowledge of every Deputy that the existing distribution of subsidised flour whether to be sold as flour or bread, is ample. It does, in fact, represent a higher consumption per head of our population than the normal pre-war consumption. There is no necessity why bread rationing should be kept in existence, even if the Government desires to continue with its scheme of making a better quality bread or flour available at double the price to those who can afford to pay it. The rationing of bread could be abolished. Supplies of subsidised flour of 85 per cent. extraction could be made freely available. If the Government wanted to do it, they could also make the luxury flour available to the rich. There is no need, merely on that account, to continue rationing. Why is it being done, and why are traders being put to the inconvenience of observing rationing regulations and why is there being maintained in the Department of Industry and Commerce a large section to supervise a rationing scheme when there is no necessity for rationing?
In the case of tea, I want to know what quantity of tea is being sold off the ration under the Government scheme for releasing additional supplies at a higher price? I want to know if the saving on subsidy equals the administration cost of maintaining tea rationing in existence? There is no scarcity of tea. The Government can buy any quantity of tea it requires. The maintenance of rationing involves not merely all the administration costs, not merely inconvenience to traders and the public, but the perpetuation of the war time system of a uniform blend, whereas I am sure traders and consumers would welcome the restoration of free trade in tea which in pre-war days resulted in a variety of blends being available at varying prices from different firms. In fact, I have the feeling that if the rationing of tea was withdrawn, if free trade was restored and if the tea blenders were permitted to follow their normal pre-trade practice, it is not impossible, even without a subsidy, that some blends of tea could be available at lower than the present fixed price. I am not suggesting that the subsidy should be abolished. In fact, the Party that I represent may have lost the requisite number of seats that necessitated its transfer to this side of the House because we decided, before we left office, to increase the subsidy on tea, sugar and other commodities. It seems to me that the mere existence of the subsidy is little justification for maintaining in existence an elaborate tea rationing system when there is no need for it.
In the case of sugar, we know also that there is no scarcity. It is undoubtedly true that the subsidised price of sugar is lower than its production cost, but the effect of the deferential price system which the Government operates is to impose an unfair tax on the commercial users of sugar. The price for sugar which is being charged to jam manufacturers and confectioners of 7½d. per lb. represents a tax paid by them to the extent, perhaps of 1½d. per lb. on sugar for the benefit of the Exchequer, with the result that the people of this country have to pay higher prices than are justified for jam and other sugar confections. Deputies will have noticed that the Government of Great Britain attaches very considerable importance to its policy which it describes under the name of "fair shares." I want Deputies to pay particular attention to the fact that the differential price system which the Government is maintaining applies particularly to those commodities which are used in the main by poorer people. It is no defence of the Government's policy to assert that they are maintaining certain supplies of these commodities at subsidised prices and releasing additional supplies at double or higher prices. The dietetic surveys carried out make it clear that, if there is any inadequacy in the present rations, that inadequacy is felt most severely in the homes of the poor. I am quite certain that, for the middleclass and better-off families, the present ration of bread and the present ration of tea is more than ample, and that the obligation to pay the higher prices charged by the Government, in order to get additional supplies, is felt only in families where bread and tea form a considerable element in the diet.
I do not know what the position is concerning butter. We know that, in the early part of this year, the Minister for Agriculture boasted that before the year was over we would be exporting butter. Nobody pays a great deal of attention to his forecasts. We know that we have not been exporting butter. In fact, the quantity of butter disclosed as being held at present in cold store would not, on the face of it, appear to be adequate to maintain the existing ration over the winter. It may be that the Government have some expectation of getting additional supplies, or that winter production will be higher than normal. It may be that the position in respect of butter would not yet permit of the abolition of rationing. To the knowledge of every Deputy, however, there is a very active black market in butter at present. Those who are prepared to pay the black market price can get supplies of creamery butter, even by the box. That would seem to suggest that the enforcement of the rationing regulations is very lax. I know that Government policy is designed to discourage the activities of its inspectors and that Ministers' speeches were intended to have that result. But if they are not going to take steps to abolish the black market there is in butter—the very active black market that exists in butter—then I think the farce of maintaining a rationing scheme should be ended.
We were told also that one of the reasons why it is necessary to retain this Act in operation is the need for maintaining building control. I explained briefly yesterday the policy followed in regard to the operation of the building control system inaugurated in 1946 in the earlier months of its existence. By the end of 1947, however, that control had been tightened so as to confine the issue of building licences to houses built by local authorities or of a size to which the subsidy provision of the Housing Acts applied. At that time, however, there was a scarcity of building materials and the control was considered necessary because of that scarcity. There were, in fact, further regulations in force concerning the sale and use of many materials used in building. Since then, these scarcities have ended. There is no longer any necessity to maintain the building control system in operation because of a scarcity of materials.
The Parliamentary Secretary told us there is still a scarcity of skilled labour and it is necessary, therefore, that we should face the fact frankly and realistically that this control is in operation for one purpose only, and that is to ensure that private building operators will not attract from local authorities or builders engaged in the production of subsidy-type houses the workers at present engaged in these activities by offering them higher wages. That may be a good or a bad policy. My main complaint is that there does not appear to be any policy because, while in theory control is being maintained in order to prevent workers from being attracted by higher wages from working for local authority contractors, there is, in fact, little or no restriction upon the issue of licences, and licences have been issued in such abundance that the very problem the control scheme was designed to prevent does, in fact, exist.
There are a number of reasons why it appears to be necessary that the Supplies and Services Act should be continued. We recognise that Government powers to regulate foreign exchange, for example, exist under this Act. There is no reason why these powers should not be transferred into permanent legislation, because we may as well face the fact that they are likely to be required for a good period ahead. But are we to assume, from the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary in justification of the continuance of rationing, that we are to suffer rationing of commodities that are not scarce so long as the Government think it necessary to pursue a policy of subsidisation?
This is the only country in the world that is now rationing bread. During the war it was the only country in which bread was not rationed. It is an anomalous situation that here, four years after the end of the war, we should be subjected to restrictions that were not necessary when the war was on. If there is to be, as there must be, a decision to maintain the policy of food price subsidisation for some time ahead, or until stability has been restored to the general price situation, then there is an obligation on us to devise a method of doing so that does not involve at the same time the administrative cost and the public inconvenience of rationing. It can be done. It was done. The price of bread was subsidised all during the war without a rationing scheme.
There is no difficulty in operating a subsidy arrangement in relation to flour or tea or sugar or in relation to butter. Some of these commodities were in the past subsidised without rationing. The only justification for the present system ever offered by the Government is a financial one. There was a desire to minimise the cost of food subsidies by restricting their area of operation. I doubt if the saving in cost is as substantial as is represented. I doubt very much if the ending of bread rationing would increase by 5 per cent. the consumption of the 85 per cent. extraction flour. I doubt very much if the withdrawal of the other rationing schemes would involve a very substantial increase, or any increase in some cases, of public consumption of them. Every grocer in the country will tell you that even in the case of butter there are many customers who do not take their full ration and, consequently, there are supplies over and above the permitted ration available for other customers.
That is a situation which is obviously undesirable, a situation which should be the concern of the Government to end as soon as possible. While we agree to the continuation of these powers by the Government for another year, it must be quite clear that the Government is expected during that time to take the necessary steps to get rid of them.
