Vol. 199 No. 11
andMr. McQuillan asked the Minister for Finance whether, in view of recent proposals by the Government concerning the wage and salary standstill, the Government have any proposals for the control of (1) commodity prices and (2) profits and dividends.
11.
andMr. McQuillan asked the Minister for Finance how long the Government intend that the proposed wages standstill be maintained.
12.
andMr. McQuillan asked the Minister for Finance if he will state, in view of the statement in the recent Government White Paper that profits have risen significantly over the past few years, what are the Government's plans for curbing this development which is considered undesirable when related to wages and salaries.
13.
asked the Minister for Finance if, having regard to the wages restraint policy announced in the White Paper on Incomes and Output, the Government have proposals for (a) control of profits earned, (b) stabilisation of the cost of living, and (c) dividend restraint.
14.
asked the Minister for Finance whether his intimation of a pay pause applies, so far as the Government are concerned, to lowly-paid city manual and white collar workers, county council road workers and farm labourers; and, if so, whether corresponding steps will be taken to reduce prices and living costs for these groups.
I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 together.
It is made clear at several points in the White Paper that the Government's concern relates to the damage to the national economy which would occur if money incomes generally were further increased before national production had risen sufficiently. There is no suggestion that restraint should be exercised only in relation to increases in wages and salaries. On the contrary, it is emphasised that "general restraint is essential". It would not be reasonable to expect this general and voluntary restraint if the Government were itself to acquiesce at present in any claims for increases in wages and salaries in State or semi-State employments which would arouse expectations of similar increases in the private sector. This is why Departments and State-sponsored organisations have been advised not to accede for the present to claims which might have this effect. The restraint is clearly intended to be merely temporary until income increases can be applied without danger of a further rise in prices, curtailment of employment or damage to national economic progress. It is hoped that the proposed objective assessment of the economic position and potentialities referred to in paragraph 19 of the White Paper will assist those who have responsibilities in settling wage and salary rates in private employment in establishing a more orderly relationship between income increases and the growth of national production.
In regard to profits, attention may be drawn to the following paragraph (No. 15) of the White Paper:
"Profits, industrial and other, form a much smaller proportion of national income than do wages and salaries. Higher profit distributions not associated with higher production or sales have, however, even if on a smaller scale, the same consequences as higher incomes not related to output. There is a special obligation on industrial managements to set, in this respect, an example to the community. Industrialists are now under pressure, through reduction of protection and higher costs, to increase efficiency; growth of profits is becoming dependent on expansion of sales in more competitive conditions."
It has already been announced that a further general reduction of our industrial protective tariffs will take place on 1 January, 1964, and an indication has been given by the Taoiseach that it would be desirable to achieve a reduction of the order of one-third by 1 January, 1965. The reduction of industrial tariffs on this basis will provide increased competition and thus impose an effective check on price levels.
So far as stabilisation of the cost of living is concerned, this will be most effectively ensured if the general level of incomes does not rise faster than output. Experience in the period 1958 to 1960, as recorded in paragraph 3 of the White Paper, bears this out.
Is it not a fact that the direction from the Government, to which the Minister referred, is in fact a direction to restrict any increase in wages in State bodies or State-sponsored bodies? In effect, this restricts any needed increase to meet the rise in the cost of living from the present onwards, while there is no such restriction in relation to profits, in so far as profit distribution is merely an annual event and in that way would not be affected by the present White Paper? It can take place subsequent to the publication of the White Paper.
Secondly, could I ask the Minister how does he suggest that somebody working in a non-productive type of employment, such as a civil servant, a CIE worker or a road worker, can increase production?
Thirdly, is it not a fact that the lack of increased productivity has been disclosed in the CIO reports as being due to under capitalisation, lack of mechanisation or development——
This is indulging in argumentation.
These are factors over which the worker has no control, in respect of which he cannot effect any increase in production.
This is purely argumentative.
It is hard to remember all the Deputy's questions. I want the Deputy to realise that a direction is given to the State bodies which says that, for the present, they should not agree to give an increase, if recommended, without having regard to what effect it might have on other sections of the population and on the national interest generally.
I might say that that direction is given only to State bodies and, so far as profits there are concerned, we shall certainly control them.
No matter how much entitled the employees of State-sponsored bodies may be to an increase, they will not get it if, in the Minister's opinion, it can have an effect on outside employment?
If it is likely to have an effect on other employees generally, they must defer it.
Whether they are entitled to it or not?
The Minister says he cannot think of all the questions. So far as the worker is concerned, is it not as simple as this: the Minister has now produced the big stick for the worker and the kind exhortation to the company director to postpone dividends for the next six months?
It is not, of course, as simple as that.
This is a very much clearer statement than that made by the Taoiseach. The Minister has said they must defer any payment of salary increases on the assumption, included in the White Paper, that they will interfere with the national economy. If that is true, the Minister has not yet told us——
The Deputy is indulging in argument.
Could the Minister say what does he mean by a temporary period?
This is purely argument by means of question.
Could I ask the Minister, arising out of his reply to the last supplementary, whether it is permissible, notwithstanding the terms of the White Paper, for a large and, let us say, well-to-do private undertaking to concede improvements in working hours, wages or salaries to its employees, whether it may do that so long as it is not a State-sponsored body?
As far as private firms are concerned, we have only asked them to consider the question. We cannot give them an order.
The Minister has said a State-sponsored company should not accede to any application for an increase in wages. If those people have made application to the Labour Court and the court makes an award, will the State company be allowed to pay the increase?
Not while this matter is under consideration.
The Taoiseach pointed out in the White Paper that despite the admonition to the State company not to accede to applications for increased wages, the ordinary negotiating machinery should obtain.
Yes.
If it operates to the extent that an application will be made to the Labour Court——
Arbitration will go on, and if the Labour Court make an award, then the State company will have to consider whether they should immediately pay that or not, having regard to the effect it might have on other sections of the community.
Is the Minister aware that before the application goes to the Labour Court, it must have been refused by the State-sponsored body? Surely this is a joke.
It is no joke.
Question No. 15.
A short question to the Minister.
It does not matter how short it is.
The Minister says he has no power——
I have called Question No. 15.
The fact that he brought in a Bill in 1932 containing 50 sections——
Order!
Question No. 15.
He did it in 1932.
I must insist——
They are very fond of calling order when they are in trouble.
Saved by the bell again.
We were able to pull the country out of trouble when you people got it into trouble.
