When the clock struck the midnight hour last night——
Prices (Amendment) Bill, 1965: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages.
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
In page 3, before paragraph (b) to insert the following new paragraph:
"( ) require manufacturers, wholesalers and importers to notify the Minister of any proposed increases in the prices charged by them for their commodities."— Deputy Corish.
Is the Deputy likening himself to Cinderella?
Glass slipper and all.
——I was telling the Minister that this amendment would not give him any great additional power but that he certainly should not find it embarrassing in the sense that it would be a discretionary power which he might or might not use. It is hard to see, therefore, why the Minister continues to resist it. If I rightly understand the Leader of the Labour Party, what he means is that this would act as an added deterrent to those who might have in mind the idea of increasing prices in a quiet, steady manner which might not draw any special attention to what they were doing—prices might be raised in such a way that there would not be any spectacular rise at any time.
If it were known to all that the Minister had this power to require manufacturers, wholesalers and importers to give advance notification of any intention to increase prices, the very existence of this power might in itself overcome the necessity for further measures to resist that type of price increase. I feel that the present situation may be such as to call for measures additional to those proposed by the Minister in this Bill. The question may become sufficiently serious for that and accordingly the Minister might be well advised to accept the additional power proposed in the amendment. The fact that such a power is there will, as I have said, hardly be an embarrassment to the Minister.
There is need for reasonably stringent measures in this matter of prices. I was surprised to hear Deputy Donegan say we were supporting the Bill not because of any increases that had taken place up to the present time. I am sure the Deputy will not mind if I disagree slightly with him in that attitude. Increases have taken place which, in my view, could not have been justified. The ordinary person realises this only when the commodities reach retail level. Where the increases began is hard to see but many people know that prices have rocketed unjustifiably in the past year or so. All the measures necessary must be available to the Minister. If the Minister starts to use the powers he has been given unreasonably, then we will come back and talk to him again. I think that is most unlikely. I know that can happen through people further down the line being over-officious but probably if the Minister looks at it in the light that this is discretionary power that is suggested in the amendment he should take his attitude might be different.
I have been thinking about this amendment overnight. Last night I adverted to one particular commodity, namely, meat, which would not be covered by the wording of the amendment. We had, I think, a slight disagreement as to whether or not there were meat wholesalers in this country. The truth as far as the meat most of us eat is concerned is that there are meat wholesalers and large export concerns. If there are a few wholesale butchers in Dublin, it is the exception that proves the rule. Therefore, the wording of this amendment would not cover meat.
I felt, therefore, that I should have a look at other commodities. When I began to do that I realised that there are many commodities, particularly in the horticultural and agricultural line, which are either sold direct by farmers to retailers or, alternatively, are sold in places like the fruit market by a factor for a commission. That is also the case in regard to direct sales. At the present moment if a farmer sends a half ton of new potatoes to the fruit market, they are lifted at five or six o'clock in the morning and the sale, while there is a commission on it, while it goes to the factor, is direct from the farmer to the retailer. Sales often take place from farmers to hoteliers, restaurateurs or anybody else.
Milk, in many areas, is still sold direct from the farmer to the consumer. This is something which I consider will end as pasteurisation wipes out that sort of trade. When you leave Dublin city, at the moment, you start to leave the sort of things covered by the amendment and, even in Dublin city, meat is not properly covered by it. Deputy Tully, who lives beside me in County Meath, will agree that there are many commodities, such as agricultural and horticultural products, which vary very much in price. While we agree with the spirit of the thing and while we feel that something should be done in this matter, the amendment as it stands is probably, without criticism of anybody, not worded in the complete manner that would be necessary.
The Bill was introduced by the Government, we are told, for the purpose of trying to do something about rising prices. The amendment has been put in by the Labour Party for the purpose of assisting the Government to catch a number of people who we believe will otherwise get away with it for months. I consider there is nothing at all unreasonable in asking that people who want to increase prices should notify the Minister's Department that they propose to do so.
Deputy Donegan has referred to a number of items which are, in fact, excluded at the present time. They are excluded from the main Bill. There is no point in showing things that were never intended to be included and saying they are not included in the amendment. We believe that if we could get the Minister to accept the amendment and thereby get the additional assistance, if you like free, from the people who want to increase prices, he will not have to have Deputy Paddy Smith's field full of inspectors going out to look for evidence. If we can give him some authority which will allow him to obtain that information without the necessity of having all these inspectors surely this should be accepted by the Minister.
I cannot understand the attitude of the Government on this because it brings us back to a suggestion made on Second Reading, which I did not agree with then, but which I am coming around to now, that this is a gentle hint or a gentle way of saying this cannot continue. It appears as some people said, during the Second Reading, with which I did not agree, but which I must now agree with, that the Government do not intend to do one damn thing about it. They want to give the impression to the country that they are doing something about it but any attempt that is made by any of us to do something about it will be strangled by the Government. If that is the attitude, the Dáil will certainly not adjourn tonight or tomorrow night because we will ensure that the Bill will have the necessary teeth and the Government, willy nilly, will have a thorough Bill which will keep prices down.
We believe, as was pointed out last night, that what we are now doing, should have been done 18 months ago. Even the late assistance given in this case to ensure that no further increases in prices would take place is not enough. The Minister could have engaged his staff going back on unreasonable increases which have occurred since the ninth round of wage increases and the turnover tax if he had the necessary authority to ensure that anybody who was trying to sneak by with increased prices—they are trying it at present and will continue to do so—would be unable to do so. In order to ensure that they could not do that, they should be obliged to notify him of any increase about to take place and then be asked by him to justify the increase. If that were done, a lot more work could be carried out by the Minister's Department. That is why we put in this amendment and the Minister should be prepared to accept it.
First of all, in regard to being here tonight or tomorrow, I want to make it clear that I shall be around anyway. It is only some of the other Deputies who may not be here. This does not influence what I will do with the Bill. My only real objection to the amendment was that it might reduce my effectiveness. While it might complete the picture of the Bill as it appeared in the Statute Book the across-the-board application of the powers which this proposes to give me could reduce the effectiveness of my Department and myself in reducing prices.
After having listened, and having let this matter be debated further, I gather that the House is prepared to see these powers used in a selective way, that you would name certain commodities if prices were going to be increased. This would be unmanageable. As I told the House last night in regard to selective arrangements to prevent price rises, I have proposed much stronger powers of my own. I have a standstill order.
Does the Minister's advisers counsel him that if the amendment is accepted——
Leave my advisers out of it. I have not finished talking. I have been thinking this out myself during the night without the help of any adviser at all. If I accept this amendment, I want the House to understand what I am accepting. I do not want it to be used as a stick with which to beat me afterwards. You do not want widespread control of things which do not affect ordinary people. You do not want to have anyone controlling something which does not affect the cost of living. You do not want these people reporting. I am not objecting to getting power which would make the Bill effective. I am objecting to getting power which, if used indiscriminately, would reduce my active effectiveness. I do not think that there is anything really wrong in the amendment.
If the Minister accepts the amendment, does he believe that there is an obligation on him to make an order?
If the Deputy stands by what he said last night and allows the Minister the discretion to use these powers selectively—if the Government give him the powers under an order, which is another step—I have no objection to accepting the amendment. I have stronger powers in the Bill.
That was what we suggested last night.
I should like to intervene for a moment because I think the Minister's approach of selectivity is probably the correct one. Some years ago when I was in the Department of Industry and Commerce—at that time the Supplies and Services Act was in operation—the procedure was that the manufacturers and groups of traders notified the Department in advance of proposed price changes. My recollection is that this was on a selective basis. It did not apply to commodities that did not affect the cost of living. One item that comes to mind at the moment is soap. When the price of imported raw materials rose—and the price of this commodity is liable to fluctuations because the prices of the raw material, the oils, vary—the manufacturers notified the Department or came to the Department and had discussions. In certain cases the prices they suggested were considered appropriate and reasonable. My recollection is that after discussions, and when the whole question had been considered in consultation with the trade interests concerned, a price was decided upon, and whether or not it was considered reasonable the trade interests accepted the opinion of the Prices Section of the Department.
On that basis it seems to me that there is no fundamental objection to notification. On the other hand, it would be ridiculous to expect commodities which have no direct effect on the cost of living to be notified to the Department, although very often it is not possible to specify in certain cases whether the article has an effect on the cost of living. Certainly the procedure that was in operation under the Old Supplies and Services Act was that there was notification either by the firm concerned or, in the case of a number of firms, the organisation representing them, and after discussions, a price was fixed. If the price suggested was regarded as excessive, a reduction was effected.
It is not sufficiently realised that while at first glance a suggested price increase may seem unreasonable and excessive, when it is examined it may often be found to be reasonable, taking into account the cost of the imported materials, the labour costs, and possibly the costs of distribution. In that connection, I think there is a good case for an examination of distribution costs. Only last week a small group of grocers had an interview with me and gave me particulars showing that weight for weight in comparable commodities produced here, there were wide discrepancies in prices. These were packaged goods and there was a remarkable difference in the price levels. There was no obligation on the manufacturers to specify the weight. It would be difficult for the public to realise the difference because the commodities were sold in packaged form and it was not necessary to specify the weight.
I think the Minister's approach to this question on a selective basis is a practical method of dealing with it. The powers in the amendment are not objectionable but, at the same time, if operated on a general scale, they might clog the working of the whole prices section.
I think we made it clear last night that we were concerned about the prices of certain commodities.
I will accept the amendment if the Deputy will show me how he visualises it will work.
I want to say first that last night we insisted that we wanted notification in respect of what can clearly be regarded as essential items: foodstuffs, clothing and commodities which affect the cost of living index figure when there is an increase in prices. This Bill is a permissive Bill, and even if the amendment is accepted the Government and the Minister still have discretion as to whether or not they will use this power. We will try to insist that they will use it. There is nothing sinister in what we want.
I want the Deputy to show me how he visualises it will work.
We want the Government to declare that the condition of the national economy is such that they will make an order to empower the Minister to do certain things, and we want them to make that order. We believe that such an order should be made and we believe that the Minister should have the power to insist that manufacturers, wholesalers, and importers of certain commodities which he regards—and which people generally regard—as having an effect or a bearing on the cost of living, should be required to notify him before increasing prices.
That is quite acceptable.
I think that is reasonable.
I had in mind also to give the House the information that in regard to certain commodities the Minister may say that whether or not there is notification, there will be a standstill. There is nothing objectionable in what the Deputy says.
The Minister is not a lawyer, and I am not a lawyer, but did his advisers tell him that if this amendment goes in as it is, there will be an obligation on him?
I understand it is permissive.
It is permissive in respect of different goods and services. It need not be a blanket one?
No. I thought the Deputy might ask later on why I did not do a blanket one, where I thought the cost of living was excessive.
Speaking on that amendment, I would hope that when the Minister got those powers, he would be very careful and very chary of using them. Prices are very difficult things, in the main, to control. I can remember very clearly the operation of prices some years ago and they had a very adverse effect on the whole economy, an adverse effect which was pointed out, if the Minister remembers, in the famous IBEC Report brought out by a group of Americans. The Government of the day brought them in and they issued a report that profit margins in this country were insufficient. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind.
The Minister mentioned putting a standstill on prices. We had on Second Reading a disagreement as to whether or not the standstill would go on first and the investigation would follow, if the Taoiseach and the Government felt that prices were excessive. The Minister for Industry and Commerce indicated that this was not so and that the investigation would come first. Would the Minister say a word on that?
Is the Deputy saying that is what I said?
My recollection is that what the Minister said is that investigation would come first and the standstill order would follow, if it were necessary.
As I see the powers in the Bill, one is that in certain commodities in a temporary period there would be no increase in prices. Power is in the Bill to make a standstill order. In accepting the Labour Party amendment, one could also say that in regard to certain commodities, there would be prior notification of an intended increase in prices. There is power in the Bill in the case of an increase in prices to say: "Go back to where you were and stay there until I investigate it." Or, in the case of starting off in a couple of weeks' time, you can go back on prices which have already been raised by having an investigation into prices as they now exist. That is the way I see the powers in the Bill. The Bill would seem to cover every possible contingency.
I do not know whether we are in order in having a practical discussion on this matter. It is true to say that a price which might appear to be excessive might, in fact, not be excessive. Again, without criticism or difficulty, I think it was Deputy Larkin who said last night that a wage increase could be proved to have a two per cent factor in the average of price increase. I am taking that immediately as correct. When you take certain commodities and the fact that labour is involved in different stages of their manufacture, you find this two per cent, as Deputy Larkin said, multiplies itself, two by two by two.
Two per cent on the aggregate.
An example is a loaf of bread. You start off with the flour-millers' workers' wages, and I presume that is two per cent written in on the average. Then you come along to the baker; that is a second progress. You then come to wrappers and you have to buy wrapping paper. After that, there is a highly expensive delivery service, if the bread is delivered. There is the situation where a commodity would seem to have increased disproportionately in price, where there would, in fact, if there has been a wage increase, be three or four separate wage increases written into the cost of the final commodity. I am not making a case for bakers or millers. I am merely mentioning something that came to mind when listening to Deputy Larkin. It is a question of whether or not the Minister could go wrong, if he is prepared to do as he says, to fix prices under a standstill order first and investigate later.
The Deputy might raise these matters on the section. They would be relevant to the section.
I am afraid that, following the interjection by Deputy Cluskey, Deputy Donegan forgot that on the aggregate it would still be two per cent, no matter how many men were involved.
If there were only one labour cost involved in production.
We are trying to stop a game that has been going on now.
The Leader of the Government said in the early stages in our proceedings in relation to this Bill that he did not believe in price control. He is presenting this Bill as a cover up for a mess into which he has brought the country.
Would the Deputy say from what he is quoting? Did the Leader of the Government say this?
Yes. We all know he brought in this Bill as an alibi for the mess into which he has got the country.
We know where Deputy Dillon stands in the matter of price control anyway.
The Deputy need not be worried. I shall inform him in great detail. We are now furnished with an amendment proposed by the Labour Party which calls for prior notification of any price increases. I wonder have we considered what this will mean? If this is to be the procedure, the net result will be simply to reduce the quality of the goods the people will get. Could anybody tell me in this House how you fix the price of tea? There are coming into this country not less than 60, probably 80, grades of tea graded in halfpennies. You can buy tea at 1/-, 1/0½, 1/1, 1/2½, 1/3. Yet, you say quite blandly that you can fix the price of tea.
How do the importers or blenders fix the price of tea?
They fix it any way they like. You cannot fix it by a statute unless you take control, as we did during the war, of all the tea coming in, mix it up——
There is competition in the price of tea, anyway.
——and dole it out in a grade fixed at the point of import by the Government. I just want to direct the attention of the House to the grotesque eyewash the proposal for fixing prices and controlling merchandise, in fact, is. How do you fix the price of a bar of soap?
The Minister's Department investigates the price of soap. They come to a conclusion and that is the price of soap.
You do not increase the price of a bar of soap. You take a pennyworth off the bar. If you sell soap by the bar, you do not increase the price of soap. Everything is sold by weight, including a bar of soap.
There is provision for that in the Bill.
A change of weight.
I am not in the least concerned about the sale of luxuries. I am concerned about the essentials of life—food, clothing and fuel. Would anybody tell me how you fix the price of children's clothes? I am concerned with the child going for Confirmation and the family going out to buy clothes. How do you fix the price of clothes?
How does the Labour Court determine what is a good wage?
They have not been highly successful.
I am merely asking these practical questions. I am anxious to ensure that we do not in this House fall into the general atmosphere of euphoria, that all our problems are now solved owing to this brainwave of the Fianna Fáil Party performing six somersaults down the middle of the Dáil. It does not make the slightest difference. It is purely fraudulent cod on the part of a Party who would sell their soul for a penny roll and are now concerned to cover up this crazy track down which we have all slipped into the catastrophic situation in which we now are. How do you fix the price of a packet of peas? You can prescribe that they must be sold by weight, but there are 16 grades of dried peas coming into this country. All you need do is, instead of putting grade A peas into a packet, to put in grade B peas.
You could take a few out.
It must be sold by net weight. You cannot protect a commodity like peas by directing by law that it must be sold by weight.
There was a little effort made about peas a few years ago by the Labour Party.
It is quite illusory to believe that putting in grade A instead of grade B is effective price control, because——
It did not improve the price or the employment of the worker.
I want to advise the Dáil about this—and I know what I am talking about. You believe that by imposing upon wholesalers, importers and manufacturers the obligation to give the Minister advance notice of an intention to increase prices, you are protecting the consumer: you are not. All you are doing is ensuring that the consumer will get a lower grade of merchandise for the same price. I detest fraud. I detest dissimulations in public that we have done something wonderful when we have done nothing at all.
How do you fix the price of an ounce of pepper? I do not care what price you fix, I can make a profit on it unless you fix it at the price of sand. There are at least 16 grades of white pepper and that does not exhaust the possibilities because then you could start dealing in black pepper. How do you fix the price of a pound of bacon? Did the members of the Labour Party ever see a price list for bacon?
It is dear enough at the present time.
The Deputy should say "hairy bacon", to finish his quotation of a while ago.
The merchants with whom I am familiar prefer not to deal with those who traffic in "hairy bacon", either as wholesalers or retailers. I am asking this question in all sincerity. How do you fix the price of a pound of bacon? All you do by notifying people that they must give this advance notice is that the factory now sending only grade A bacon to Britain will then send grade A and grade B bacon.
They cannot sell grade A bacon, even with the subsidy, because the supply exceeds the demand. Do not be codding.
You can sell all the grade A bacon we have to sell in Great Britain and fiat justitia ruat coelum, it is now competing pretty actively with the Danish price on the British market. However, if you have to deal with grade A bacon, there are all the subsequent grades of bacon and how do you fix the price of a pound of bacon?
The price would come down to the producer. The farmer would get less.
No. You fixed the price of pigs and by grade. The producer gets that and will go on getting it and so long as Fianna Fáil are a minority Government, he will go on getting it. I do not worry about that. You would not dare to reduce the price of pigs but you would dare and you are daring to participate in a fraud on the defenceless consumers of this country.
I should be very concerned to see an attempt, a serious, genuine, honest attempt, made in this country to establish a prices incomes policy. I said repeatedly when leading this Party during the general election that to get a prices and incomes policy effectively operated depended mainly on persuasion and co-operation and that no matter how many teeth we put into the machinery to achieve the end of an effective prices and incomes policy, the measure of our success or failure would be whether we had to use the teeth and if we had to use teeth to enforce it then we should have failed.
I have always been able to deal with trade unions on a rational basis if they understand your case and believe that substantial justice is being done. I have dealt frequently with employers' associations. On the whole, I have found employers to be reasonable men, not angles any more than trade unionists are angles but reasonable men, providing they believe you are dealing honestly and frankly with them. I should not be honest if I said to the members of the Labour Party that I believe their amendment will secure a genuine price control.
We do not believe it is perfect, either.
I have been in this all my life. I know it. I know how it can be done. If we want to get price control, I know how we must get it. I ought to know because when I was in the Government with Deputy Corish, we sweated blood to see that vital prices were kept down and we kept them down.
We had a Prices Advisory Tribunal.
We had—and we met and controlled the powerful vested interests that came against us to challenge our purpose and we forced them to keep prices down. We went as far as necessary, back to the roots of production, to secure that the price of bread would be kept at a certain level, and we kept it there. Ultimately, as Deputy Corish knows, it cost the Exchequer £9 million a year in order to see substantial justice done to the manufacturer, the distributor and the consumer. We kept prices at the level we thought just and, on that basis, we kept a degree of stability in our economy in times of unparalleled difficulties which we think reflected great credit on our exertions, though we got damn little thanks for it. We were not looking for thanks: we were doing our job. I salute the memory of those who did it fearlessly, which is more than some people do. I do not believe this Government have the slightest intention of operating an honest incomes and prices policy. I believe this Government are going to flounder about and ultimately to launch us into the dual disaster of bankruptcy and inflation.
I feel we are getting away from amendment No. 1.
I can sympathise with that view but, in fact, I am not. Amendment No. 1 raises the issue as to whether you can effectively control prices by imposing on manufacturers, wholesalers and importers an obligation to notify the Minister in advance of their intention to increase prices. I am trying to demonstrate to the House that that is simply whistling down the wind, and if we imagine that this device will produce the results we hope for, we are crazy. But, of course, the people who will get the blame are not the wiseacres in Oireachtas Éireann, nor yet the Minister. Ultimately, the people who will get the blame are the bureaucrats for not doing their job but they have been given an impossible job. We shall have to ask them to do what it is humanly possible to do.
I believe in making laws that are certain and clear so that the people will understand them, that the people can trust them and that those whom we charge with the responsibility of enforcing them will be given a possible task, but, at the moment, we are giving them an impossible task. I want to say about this whole idea that if it is designed to protect our people from getting less value for the money they have to spend, it is useless. All that it will do is that, for the same expenditure, they will get less in volume or quality of the commodity which they seek to buy. Make up your minds to it.
Lastly, I want to say this. Let us dismiss from our minds that this procedure will make any real contribution whatever to the problem with which we are at present faced in this country. This is like taking out a tin cup to bale out a boat into which the tide is coming over the gunwale.
I do not see the Deputy's alternative.
My alternative is to put out Fianna Fáil. It is quite simple.
It is not very feasible at the moment.
The Deputy and I discussed that on another occasion. It was suggested afterwards that I had mercilessly attacked the Labour Party. What I said then and what I say now is that, if we are not in a position to kick them out, the word "Tullamore" should be written on your heart just as "Calais" was written on the heart of Queen Mary.
(Interruptions.)
Did anybody ever say there was a suggestion by Fine Gael or anybody else that there was going to be a coalition after the last election, unless Fine Gael had it written on their hearts but did not disclose it to us?
All I was concerned with was to get Fianna Fáil out. It is quite illusory to imagine that this will remedy the present situation. There is only one remedy: get them out. As long as they are there, we are going to pursue a policy, as I warned this House before, which is the policy of a gambler. We are going to stumble along the road to inflation. With the inevitable result of inflation coming upon us, we are going to try to remedy it with a Prices Bill. We are going to cynically declare when we produce the Bill that we do not believe it, but it is a good alibi. This will not stop prices going up. What will happen if you get devaluation? Do you think this Bill will stop prices going up?
If there is devaluation of the pound, it is the English economy which is affected, not here.
I will not ask to bring within the ambit of this amendment the broad question of Deputy de Valera's optimism on the subject of devaluation. It is a topic of which he has, apparently, a very limited understanding. I would be grateful to those who propose this amendment to tell me how they propose it will provide protection for the woman who wants to buy tea, soap, margarine, pepper or bacon. In my submission, what the amendment will achieve is not to control the prices of these commodities but to guarantee that the woman who goes out to buy them will get somewhat worse value for her money than she has got heretofore. I do not think that is serving the purpose the Labour Party have in mind. It is certainly not serving the purpose I had in mind when I spoke of a prices and incomes policy being necessary for this country if we are to be protected on the slippery slope Fianna Fáil has led us and down which we are slithering at present.
One must wonder about the benefits of a good night's sleep, or should I say, a bad night's sleep. What we have heard this morning is more revealing than what we heard last night. Last night, the Fine Gael Front Bench indicated they were with us on this amendment. I was glad to hear the Minister say what he said this morning. But then Deputy Dillon gets up and starts lecturing the Labour Party about this whole matter. I recall Deputy Donegan saying last night that price control was Fine Gael policy in the last election. It is far too easy for people to ask how do you do this and how do you do that. Deputy Dillon spoke at great length and asked how do we fix prices for this and that. We could also ask: how do you fix wages?
I think Deputy Dillon is reading into this amendment something that is not there. We are simply asking for arrangements to be made for these people to notify price increases to the Department. That will mean they will have to be prepared to make a case for such increases. I will expect the Department to ensure that whether or not they are justified in their intentions——
They will not increase the price; they will reduce the quality.
I would also expect the Department to ensure—and I understand the Minister has the power to do so—that the quality of goods sold to the public is maintained and not diminished.
The housewives of the country would not accept second-class quality while paying for first-class quality. They are not that mad.
What we are advocating is proper price control. While the amendment may not settle everything, it is a step in that direction. We expect that immediately notification is given, the Department will ascertain whether or not these people are justified in increasing their prices. This is not an unreasonable thing to ask. As I said last night, just as the working man organised in a trade union is required to make a case for an increase in wages, the business people must also be called on to make a case for an increase in prices.
It seems to me no reasonable person could object to this amendment. I do not know what the attitude of the Minister is in regard to it. I am told now that he is accepting it. However, I am surprised at the remarks of Deputy Dillon in this regard. It seems to me to be falling in line with the trend developing here since the advent of Fianna Fáil in 1961. I am referring to the idea propagated by the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party that opposition is impolite, unnecessary and uncalled for; and that in fact the function of an opposition is much the same as the function of a suggestion box in a factory. In other words, he wants a suggestion box opposition.
Deputy Dillon asked how is this Bill to be made effective. It is the job of the Government to make it effective. If they fail to make it effective, it is the fault of the Government. I cannot see how it can be reasonably argued that this Bill and this amendment will not help to bring about a better situation in regard to prices than the one now existing. The present situation with regard to prices is absolutely chaotic as we well know. Prices are running away from wages like race-horses running from the tape and no effort has been made to relate the two. This Bill is an effort, inspired, fought for and secured by no other Party than the Labour Party. I remember when we talked about the need for price control in this House the Taoiseach and his Ministers and Party were unanimous in rejecting the idea that price control would be in any way effective. The Taoiseach is on record on numerous occasions to that effect. He has had to accept common sense and logic. He has had to accept the Labour Party position in this matter.
Devaluation has been mentioned. Deputy de Valera, if I took him correctly, suggested that it would not make any difference to us.
I did not say that. What I said was that the major factors that would determine whether it would or not take place would be in the British economy rather than here. I took it as devaluation of the £. That is what I said.
(South Tipperary): Is the Deputy trying to blame the British economy for our troubles here?
What I said was only on the question of devaluation of the £.
Is not every economic step taken here directed by what is happening in the British economy? To what extent can we, in fact, govern our economic future?
Acting Chairman
That matter is out of order. All we are concerned with on this amendment is notification of increased prices.
Has this amendment not been accepted? Where are we going?
How will we get on in the case of an amendment that I will not accept?
In any case, the British will not ask us for our opinion if they are going to devalue. Devaluation would be a very serious thing for this economy.
Acting Chairman
The matter is out of order at the moment.
I am merely saying what this amendment cannot do. The amendment is to the effect that manufacturers, wholesalers and importers be required to notify the Minister of any proposed increases in the prices charged by them for their commodities. That is common sense. What point is there in having a Prices Bill unless there is some kind of standstill? In effect, this is a standstill being placed on prices. If this were not in the Bill, I can see similar instances as occurred in certain trades in this city within recent months in relation to prices taking place rapidly. In spite of what might be argued here by representatives of special vested interests in this House, not all wholesalers, manufacturers and retailers are saints. Not all of them are devoted to either the First or the Second so-called Programme for Economic Expansion. In fact, I would suggest that the great majority of them are devoted to the accumulation of the highest possible bank balances they can assemble.
Acting Chairman
That is very much outside the scope of the amendment.
I am sorry if I am transgressing the rules of order but I thought it was apposite enough.
So it is.
The amendment is accepted.
We want——
To rub it in.
The Deputy is talking about soap, I suppose.
It has a cleansing effect.
An abrasive soap would be required. It is not my purpose to detain the House very long. There are other amendments. I want to make it clear that we will not at any time consent to become a suggestion box Opposition. I remember what the Taoiseach said when asked by members of the then inter-Party Government about the difficulties of running a Government at a time when there were international difficulties.
Acting Chairman
I would point out that that matter does not come within the terms of the amendment.
I am finishing now. I merely want to say that his answer was: "It is not our function to tell you how to run the country. You are there for that. If you cannot do it, get out."
Before Deputy de Valera starts, I want to say that in view of the fact that half an hour ago the amendment was accepted by the Minister, in order to get the business finished, we should not have any further speeches.
There is one point on this amendment which is worth indicating. In so far as power is given in the Bill, there is power to deal with the control of commodities. On the point that Deputy Dillon mentioned, there is power in subsection (2) (e):
An order made by the Minister by virtue of this Part may——
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
(e) contain all such incidental or ancillary provisions (including a requirement that the commodity to which the order relates shall be sold only in specified units of weight or measure) as shall appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient ...
As far as power is concerned, the power is in the Bill and in the amendment.
There is nothing there about quality.
It is covered by 22.
I would not like your job when it came to dealing with a practical problem.
The power is there. The practical problem is the other thing. We should not confuse the two. This Bill gives power to the Minister to do certain things. The amendment gives power. I think the powers are ample but, of course, the practical problem of giving effect to these powers in accordance with the intentions here is a different matter. I do not want to prolong this discussion but I would recommend Deputies to consider the experience of the Coalition Government in 1951 when prices rose.
I do not see how that arises.
It is very relevant because prices were going up out of control then. A demonstration was given in this House. I do not want to delay with the details because it is only relevant to the point of what the difficulties are. I refer Deputies to the debate at that time. There are real difficulties in controlling prices, as Deputy Dillon, amongst the many things he has said, pointed out, but that does not mean that these difficulties have not to be faced or that an effort has not to be made to deal with them in the circumstances.
This amendment gives power to the Minister in that regard and the only objection to it which I, like the Minister, would like to have clear is that it is to be applied selectively and in accepting it, the House should be clear that it is for selective application that this amendment is designed, not for global application because global application would fail in effect and would also, as the Minister said, gum up the works and prevent action or concentration on what would be the more important issues at the moment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, line 7, to delete "six" and substitute "twelve".
I do not think we need anybody in this House to tell us or to demonstrate by way of example how difficult it may be to provide machinery to have an absolute control over prices. The Members of the House ought to appreciate what we want, what the Minister appears to want and what the Members of the Fine Gael Party appear to want, in so far as the House agreed that this Bill be given a Second Reading. All the snags Deputy Dillon pointed out in relation to certain selected commodities are there. However, what has been the position over the past 12 or 18 months? What is the alternative to a measure like this? The free-for-all we have had in the past 18 months encouraged by the Fianna Fáil Government, encouraged by the neglect of the Fianna Fáil Government, by their various statements to the effect that competition will ensure that prices will reach a reasonable level? These statements were repeated ad nauseam by the Taoiseach, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Justice. All this was discussed on the turnover tax in particular.
Is this on the section? There is an answer to that.
I want to point out to Deputies and to the Chair that all these amendments are amendments to a section that deals with price stability. I, therefore, say that in respect of any of these amendments we are entitled to talk about prices generally. However, I do not intend to proceed in that manner in view of the fact that there is somewhat limited time, so with the permission of Deputy de Valera, I will come to this amendment.
We suggest that the period for the order which the Government might make is too short. First of all, the Government make an order. When they will make this order, I do not know. Whether it will be done in the immediate future, in the recess, I do not know. That is the discretion which the Government themselves have. In any case when the Government are satisfied, and I quote again: "that the condition of the national economy is such that it is necessary to maintain stability of prices generally, the Government may by order authorise and empower the Minister to do from time to time any or all or some of the following ...". In page 6 it says: "An order made by the Government under this section shall remain in force for such period (not exceeding six months from the date of the making thereof)". That is the order declaring, let us call it for the want of a better word, a special occasion or an emergency.
Within that period, unless the Government order is extended, the Minister must do certain things. I suggest that if he has to do certain things and to make orders himself that are to obtain for six months, by the time we come to the fifth month of the Government order, he may not have got through his job of inquiring into the prices of various commodities. Therefore, it will always be necessary for the Government to extend the period of their order beyond the six months. The period of the Government order should be 12 months in order to allow the Minister time in which to do any or all of the things contained in this piece of legislation.
The order is made, say, today. What does the Minister do? Does he put a price freeze on every commodity and does it operate straight away or does he wait for two weeks and say he is going to investigate the price of soap, for instance? That will take a certain amount of time. If he is going to investigate canned foods, footwear or clothing, it will take time for him to accumulate all the information and to put certain submissions before the tribunal. It may well be that by the time all this is done and the Minister decides to make an order, the Government order may have expired. The extended order need not necessarily operate for 12 months but it would give the Minister latitude to do what he needs to do in respect of certain commodities.
Could he not repeat the order?
He could repeat the order but I do not see why he should confine himself to six months.
In our view a period of 12 months is too long. Price changes can occur and it would mean that if an order were made by the Minister for 12 months and he made it in the belief that price changes would not occur and then price changes did occur, the situation could arise that the person who is selling or manufacturing an article might be involved in considerable loss. There is the fact that a continuance order may be made. Six months is long enough and if the Minister's investigations are not completed in six months, the continuance order can be sought.
Out of this section and out of this amendment has come the point that what the Taoiseach said was right, that if a price is apparently—and I use the word "apparently" deliberately— excessive, that price will be controlled by standstill order and that then the investigation will take place. In other words, as I said on Second Reading, and I was contradicted by the Minister, this is a Wild West show: shoot first and ask questions afterwards. If the Minister sitting in his Department in conference with his officials feels that the price of a commodity is excessive, he will control first and investigate afterwards.
There will be some cases where we ask questions first and then shoot.
Yes, but the fact is that the Minister on Second Reading was incorrect in what he said and the Taoiseach was correct. Both methods will be used but there is no doubt that there will be control first and questions will be asked afterwards.
We are seeking to be able to do both things.
No doubt the Minister intends to use both powers.
In different circumstances.
As the circumstances demand it. In that case this is a very severe Bill.
Acting Chairman
We are not discussing the Bill. We are discussing amendment No. 2, to delete "six" and substitute "twelve".
They are all related to the section.
The point was made by Deputy Corish and the Minister nodded his head that control was to take place first and investigation afterwards. I immediately took up the point as I had taken it up on Second Reading. I also adverted to it last night and now I have had it confirmed to me again by the Minister that that is what will happen. As I have said, we believe six months is an adequate period, if we have to have this Bill which we do not think is a wonderful measure. Let it not be thought there is any great divergence of views between Deputy Dillon and the rest of us here. This is an instrument which has been brought in by the Government and of which we do not think a lot. However, it is here now and as responsible legislators, we have to consider it on the Committee Stage.
I cannot conceive of a situation where the Minister's activities which he would consider necessary would be brought to a sudden end by the Government refusing to extend by a continuation order the order which gave him the powers. The Minister for Industry and Commerce would be engaged in certain activities and would go to the Government for his order. If it were felt that his activities should continue, I cannot conceive of a situation in which the Government, having been convinced, would not give the Minister the powers he needs. The six months is to show, as I said on Second Stage, that we have not changed our ideas about competition being the best regulator of prices. We foresee, however, and have always foreseen, the possibility that in certain economic circumstances, extra powers should be available to the Minister to control prices. I have never minimised the task. As far as we are concerned, we believe the situation will be of a temporary character and all that is necessary is power for the Government to make an order should the situation warrant it. That is a reflection of our thinking.
But, inevitably, they would have to make a second order.
And even a third and fourth, perhaps.
Mr. O'Leary
The reason we have moved this amendment is that we feel the action that would have to be taken would be taken in circumstances in which it was more or less called for, in a situation which cried out for intervention. We regard six months as too short for really effective intervention in the field of prices. Manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers could do too much manoeuvring. We ask that the period be extended to 12 months to ensure that there will be no ambiguity about the possibility of Government action and no room for mistake as to the function of the Government in this field of prices.
It is true that there is power to seek an extension of the six months' period but it is our belief that, in order to intervene effectively in this so-called competitive arena, for the purpose of regulating prices or achieving some kind of equilibrium, a 12 months' period is essential. Having taken all the factors into consideration, that is the only realistic period from the point of view of Government intervention. I said last night that I regarded this Bill as a figleaf designed to cover the Government's nakedness because of their inactivity in relation to rising prices. We feel that those who control the market place would be quite competent to defeat any policy in relation to increasing prices. We live in what is euphemistically called a free economy——
Acting Chairman
The Deputy is widening the scope of the debate.
Mr. O'Leary
We spoke this morning on everything from devaluation to inter-Party Government control.
Acting Chairman
The Chair is indicating to the Deputy that the Deputy is going outside what is permitted.
Mr. O'Leary
We consider a 12 months' period more realistic than a six months' period. We believe the time has come when there is need for the mailed fist where prices are concerned and a 12 months' period is a better indication of the seriousness of governmental intervention in this particular area. We believe there are some scalps to be got in this "Prices Wild West". Control is not just an academic exercise. We believe, in the light of past experience, and because of the increases that have occurred, that the situation calls for a 12 months' period. We know there is power to seek a continuance order but we believe there must be a psychological approach to price regulation and a clear demonstration that the Government are quite serious in their intention to intervene at this late stage in a really decisive way.
If this amendment is not accepted, the message conveyed to the country will be that this Prices Bill is a sterile thing. If this Bill is to bring about restraint, and prove a deterrent and a dissuader, all those concerned must be fixed with a reasonable period of time. We regard six months as totally inadequate. We appreciate that there can be a continuance order but, in an economic atmosphere in which trade unions and other groups are expected to enter into long-term contracts, which they are expected to keep for periods of 2½ years, then it is only right and proper that in a measure designed to control prices, a reasonable period of time should also be provided. We regard 12 months as a reasonable period. More important still, it must be made clear to all facets of our economic life that price stability and price control are to become an integral part of Government policy. A period of six months will convey all too clearly to the vested interests involved, as it conveys to us, that they can easily afford to stay their hands and refrain from increasing prices for six months. After all, six months is not a very long period. Assuming this Bill would go by default at the end of six months, we would once more find ourselves in a period of spiralling prices all over again, and at an accelerated rate. Again, we would have serious disruption of our economy.
Talking in terms of time, this prices measure should be a continuing measure and not merely something of a temporary nature for as long as economic circumstances ordain. So long as we have people suffering under a burden of unfair prices and so long as other sections of the community are committed to agreements for periods of upwards of 2½ years, then so long should we have in operation a measure designed to control prices. It is intrinsically wrong to expect the trade unions and Congress to embark once more on a national agreement for a period of two or three years, while, at the same time, expecting a measure in relation to such a vital matter as price control to last not more than six months. The mention of a six months' period in this measure detracts from the intrinsic worth of the Bill and from the fact that it should be a measure of great moral suasion designed to persuade those concerned to exercise restraint in the matter of prices. That restraint, so far as any reasonable Government are concerned, should be a continuing action and not merely for six months or a continuation of that period but for as long as is required, in order to ensure stability and decent standards for our people.
That is a different amendment. What the Deputy is advocating now is something without a term of time in it. It is the intention of the Government to make orders when the economic situation warrants it and to continue such orders so long as is necessary, for 12 or 18 months or more. Later in the Bill, I am seeking powers which the draftsmen tell me are needed on a permanent basis to extend the prices advisory committee's powers to different levels where prices are regulated. These will not be limited by any time and will give the Minister —if passed by the Dáil—power to continue orders beyond any period named in the Bill or in the amendment.
But in this section it is specificially stated that the period shall be six months. That is the trouble.
The six months relates to an order made by the Government.
I do not think it makes any difference whether the Minister accepts the amendment or not because the subsection specifies a period not exceeding six months. A period not exceeding 12 months or 24 months does not make any difference to the Minister because even if it is written in here, the Minister may make an order not exceeding three months, if he so desires. Subsection (4) then gives the Minister powers for the making of continuance orders if he sees fit. In other words, every six months, as in the case of a person applying for a driving licence and not getting it, we can have a look at the situation. It makes no substantial difference to the Minister's powers or the Bill whether he accepts this amendment or not. If the Labour Party think it will have a better psychological effect to have the term as 12 months instead of six months, it is hard to see why it should not be accepted.
One of the difficulties that could arise if you fix a price for 12 months is that a mistake could be made in the first instance by fixing too high a price.
"Not exceeding" are the operative words.
The question of "not exceeding" refers to time. I am discussing an excessive price being fixed through a wrong calculation or something of that kind which would set the price pattern for 12 months. It would be possible during that 12 months that factors could arise which would justify a substantial reduction in price. These things do happen. For instance, the world price of sugar has fallen and last year there were increases in the prices of commodities containing sugar and these have not gone down. The price of cocoa I think is now one-fifth of what it was but the price of chocolate and other such commodities has not gone down. If you fix too long a period for these things, you may have a situation in which prices will be artificially maintained and will be unnecessarily high.
On the other hand, I think I can understand the justification for the Labour Party amendment. You could have a situation in which the raw materials could be in stock, more than a year's supply. Or we could be producing all the raw materials here and we could have so arranged the economy that there would be no justification for an increase in the price of these materials during the year. Similarly, we could have a more practical and better form of national wage agreement which would be expected to operate for a year or two years and all the contributory factors in the price range would be, or should be, static for the period and that is a justification for having an order made for 12 months in advance. Why the Minister seeks to limit himself exactly to six months I do not know.
May I interrupt? My amendment seeks to ensure that the Government will make the order for 12 months to allow the Minister to operate six months' orders within the 12 months.
That is quite clear.
My answer to that is that there may be a situation where the Minister will want to do something and the Government order would not let him. I think the present arrangement allows the Government to assist the situation and to say it is necessary to have these powers.
The Government have power to scrap the order within 12 months.
Can the Minister enlighten the House on the matter of what exactly will his powers be to modify orders that are made? Looking through some sections, I think the Minister will obviously have such powers.
The Government can make an order for six months. During that period, I can make orders relating to various activities in price control, but if the Government order finishes its life, all the orders made by the Minister die with that. But the Minister can get the Government to repeat the order and if they think the economy warrants it, they will naturally make continuance orders.
If the price of a commodity, for instance, is fixed at 2/-for six months and if information is received by the Minister during that six months that would justify a ceiling of 1/10 d for that commodity, may the Minister revoke the order?
He can make an annulling order on his own order and set the price at 1/10 d for another six or three months, as the case may be.
Section 22B (3) says:
The Minister may by order revoke or amend an order made by the Minister by virtue of this Part, including an order under this subsection.
In effect, whether we have six months or 12 months written into the section we are dealing with now, it makes no effective difference to the Minister's powers. I think the Labour Party are more concerned with the psychological effect of having 12 months there instead of six months but the Minister can at any time, even within a week after making the order, revoke the order. Therefore I cannot see why the amendment cannot be accepted.
I am seeking an amendment later on—I shall explain why— on a more permanent basis to amend the powers of advisory committees which will extend unrelated to any order of the Government. There will be a permanent change in the 1958 Act. This will give me power to deal with prices in the six months' period related to the Government order during which fairly extensive powers can be given to the Minister which up to now he did not need.
If the change which the Minister mentions would be the answer, then the Minister should withdraw this section, but he has not withdrawn it.
This section will be necessary in certain circumstances. I think those circumstances should be judged by the Government and they should say: "The economic circumstances now are such that we need these extra powers for the Minister for Industry and Commerce and we will give them for six months. If the same economic circumstances continue, we can extend them for any group of six-month periods." This arrangement gives greater flexibility.
I began to explain earlier that we believed that competition is the best regulator of prices but we found there may be certain economic circumstances where this does not work and that is why we need these extra powers —to meet such economic circumstances which we believe will be temporary when they appear and should be dealt with on a temporary basis.
What did the Minister say about competition keeping prices at a reasonable level?
I said in normal circumstances——
Yes.
——our philosophy was based on the assumption that competition was the best way. We foresaw the possibility of an economic situation which would require a more active intervention and I do not think anybody in this House is underestimating the task of regulating prices. I think we all appreciate the difficulty. But we foresaw the possibility of economic circumstances arising which would make it worthwhile and necessary for the Government to take fairly strong power, such as the power of standstill, which is a very strong power, but it would not be desirable to have all these powers all the time.
The Minister's refusal to accept this amendment is indicative of the Government's intention to avoid, if they can, doing anything about prices, to make the first possible excuse not to use the machinery for the benefit of the consumer. The section gives the Government power to make an order which will remain in force for six months. We are concerned that once that order has been made, every possible opportunity will be given to the Minister to deal with the situation arising from increases in prices. While we on these benches are not here for the purpose of talking about prices from a national point of view, we have repeatedly pointed out that there has been a crisis in the economy of the citizens for quite a long time. The balance of payments difficulties may have been a recent development but there has been a crisis in the economies of the families which make up this nation for some time, a crisis about which the Government have done nothing.
We feel that when the Government declare that an order is necessary, at least they should make an order which will enable the Minister to act in the interests of the ordinary consumer. That is why we think the period should be 12 months. The Minister tells us that the Government may extend the period for six months and again for another six months. The dogma of Fianna Fáil, which also appears to be the dogma of Fine Gael, is that the only way to deal with prices is to let the power of competition operate, the only way to deal with anything is to let exploitation be the measure. We feel strongly that once this order has been made, it should remain in force for 12 months.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, the Minister felt it necessary to impose a number of standstill orders on the prices of various commodities and following that, decided it was necessary to have an investigation. The decision to hold an investigation might not be made until one, two, three or four months after the orders were made. At that stage are the Government likely to make another order extending the period for another six months in order to afford the Minister or the Prices Advisory Body the opportunity to recommend that some action should be taken within the period of——
The Prices Advisory Committees will not be limited by this at all.
Nevertheless——
There is no "nevertheless"; they will not be limited by six or 12 months.
Having regard to what the Minister said, there appears to be no doubt that the Government will use the first possible excuse to terminate an order or let it lapse after six months. We believe that this crisis the consumers are experiencing has not just developed in the last few weeks or months, and unless there is positive and continued action over a period in regard to people who increase prices without having regard to the position of the consumer, and unless machinery is set up to exert some control over them, then clearly this will not be effective. Accordingly we press the Minister to accept the 12 months.
(Cavan): This Bill is necessary because since 1957, and particularly since 1961, the Government have allowed things to get completely out of control. The economy has gone wrong as a result of Government action through the turnover tax and all that followed from it. The powers being sought by the Minister under the Bill are extreme powers; they are powers which bring back the memories of some of us to the days of the war and to the Department of Supplies. We should not forget that the order which the Minister or the Government makes under this section is not an order prohibiting an increase in price after an investigation to determine whether or not that price is fair or excessive; it is, as the Taoiseach said on the Second Reading of the Bill, a control first, to be followed by an investigation. Deputy Donegan and I both said that it is a question of shooting first and asking the questions afterwards. Therefore I think that a period of six months is adequate.
It may turn out in some cases where a standstill order has been made that, upon investigation, a proposed increase is fair and reasonable. On the other hand, if after an investigation, it turns out that the proposed increase is excessive, the Minister has the machinery under this section to extend his prohibition for a further six months and for a further six months, ad infinitum, as far as I can see. If this were an order made after an investigation into a proposed price increase, then I would consider 12 months a reasonable period, but having regard to the fact that it is an on-the-spot prohibition and that the investigation is only to take place afterwards, a period of 12 months is too long.
On a point of order, I am not too certain whether this Bill is being proceeded with in the right way. We hopped from the first amendment to the second amendment without discussing the intervening paragraphs.
The whole Bill is only one section.
It is, for all practical purposes, but we have not gone through the paragraphs.
The amendments have to be disposed of.
On the question of prices, I have heard attacks from the members of the Labour Party who have been notorious for their long absences from this House over a considerable period. It is refreshing to see them here in greater strength now.
We have a vested interest in this Bill.
It so happens that all matters that come before the House affect everybody in the country.
Mr. O'Leary
The law term is not over yet.
People who presume to know what the attitude of Parties is have repeatedly here this morning and last night made attacks on Fine Gael in relation to our prices policy. Maybe our policy in that respect is too sophisticated, too far above them to be understood by them. Some Members who purport to be skilled in the education of their fellow-citizens have shown themselves singularly ignorant of our policy.
On a point of order, what are we discussing—Fine Gael policy or the Bill?
We are discussing amendment No. 2.
The Fine Gael policy was attacked here this morning and we were told by some people that our policy on this amendment—
You changed it overnight.
We wish to make perfectly clear what our policy is and because they are sitting here listening now, they may get a greater understanding of it. We have made it perfectly clear already that we believe in an incomes policy. We are against a wages policy, against a policy patterned on wages only, with no effort being made in the matter of other incomes. I should be surprised if the Labour Party, understanding that, did not agree with us.
You borrowed it from us and therefore we must know what you are talking about.
We have said time out of number that this country needs a broad incomes policy. We are not entirely happy about this Bill or about the effort to have ad hoc limitation of prices. If we are to have an expanding economy, we need a permanent consultative council on incomes which will be in advance in setting the pattern for price movement. We think it is not enough to control prices when the harm is done.
Is this in reference to the six months or to the 12 months?
This refers to the necessity for setting a pattern of price movement. I have already said what the danger will be if we set prices for a 12-month period. If we do that, the danger is, as I have pointed out, that we may set them at too high a level. The fact that the Minister has power in the Bill does not mean he will use that power. The possibility, the probability even, is that once the bureaucrats fix a price, they will be extremely loth to modify it within the period and the danger is that prices might be set at too high a pattern for too long a period. If we had a permanently sitting consultative council representing all sections of the community, then there would be a permanent system for control, in a sensible way, of income movements which include prices as a major factor.
I should like to say briefly that it is a pity we all seem to be at variance. I believe sincerely that the investigations which will go on will, in some cases, produce unfair prices. This may shock members of other Parties. In the rise in costs that came about from various factors, the ninth round of wage and salary increases was one factor which in the case of some commodities led to increased prices to a very considerable degree. If we make an order for 12 months, we give power to the Minister to fix a price and this means that with the pressure on the section of the Department dealing with price investigations, this fixed price may remain in a pigeonhole for 12 months. In a period of inflation, this may mean the price fixed might be lower than the cost of production. If that happens, production stops and men are dismissed. It is a basic fact of production that people do not go on making things if they are losing money on their manufacture. Deputy Corish is right when he says we have a vested interest in this Bill.
I said we have a vested interest.
He is quite right. I should like to make it quite clear that we do not wish to get into an argumissed ment with the Labour Party. The context in which we are discussing the Bill is one in which the Minister has gone to the FUE and to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to seek restraint on both sides and one of the instruments of this restraint is the Bill before the House. It is quite right that Deputy Corish should have a vested interest here. However, in all friendship, I say he is in error in favouring 12 months because so long a period would be unfair when one considers the pressure there will be on the relevant section in the Department.
I say six months is enough, in view of the fact that the Minister may make a continuation order. We must realise we are going far when we arbitrarily fix prices which may appear excessive but which may not be excessive at all. Deputy Larkin said the ninth round of wage and salary increases affected prices by only two per cent. Deputy Cluskey interjected that this question should be aggregated. I have pointed to the case of bread. It would be affected by an increase in the wages of bakery workers, an increase in the wages of transport staff, an increase in the wages of vanmen. This would have a snowballing effect on the cost of the commodity. Deputy Cluskey's point of two per cent aggregate may be true and the investigation carried out by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions may be correct, but in respect of some commodities, it is untrue. It must vary in relation to the labour content involved in the production of the commodity. Nobody, even those in the Labour Party, can dispute that. Presumably, there are items in which the increase in cost because of the ninth round would be only one per cent but there are other commodities in respect of which it would be ten per cent.
The aggregate is two per cent.
I am accepting the aggregate. I have no evidence either way and I accept, as I must under the rules of order, that what the Deputy says is true. However, he will find that a lot of the investigations will prove that the increases in prices were justified by costs. Twelve months, therefore, is too long a period. Think of the row there was some years ago when there was talk of a wages standstill order.
We hate to think of it.
Other people will be affected by a prices standstill order. I should like to consider the matter fairly between both sides. When the Labour Party say we have changed overnight, they are wrong. They can read our speeches on the Second Reading and they will find we regard this as a completely inept piece of legislation. We are the principal Opposition here and it is our duty to see that the best possible piece of legislation goes out from here. That is our approach.
Deputy Donegan has got the wrong end of the stick.
No; Deputy Corish has.
So has Deputy Ryan and all the members of the Fine Gael Party.
Show us the stick.
Do they understand what the amendment seeks to do?
Perfectly.
It seeks to ensure that the Government would make a 12-month order empowering the Minister to make six-month orders. Is it not rubbish, therefore, to talk about maximum prices for 12 months? The six-month period is there and the Minister can operate a six-month order within the global order of 12 months. That is the only reason we put down this amendment, to allow the Minister time to manoeuvre. Is that clear? Does the Deputy not agree, therefore, it does not mean orders in respect of prices that will obtain in six months. Deputy Donegan said that if the amendment is accepted by the Minister and inserted by him, there may be orders that will obtain for 12 months.
I see what the Deputy means but I cannot envisage a situation in which the Minister's orders will be nullified.
The Minister has given his views. I want to ensure that Fine Gael have not got the wrong end of the stick.
Well, that is a job.
I think the Fine Gael Party can be absolutely confident in the Fianna Fáil Party that they are not going to go wild about this Bill. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is not going to freeze prices all round. The Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Fianna Fáil Government are not going to investigate too many commodities but as long as this Bill is on the statute book, as long as the Minister has power and as long as the Government can make these orders, we will try to insist here that they will investigate and that they will control prices, where a tribunal has decided they should be controlled. We do not object to all factors, including wages, being taken into consideration when prices are investigated.
I do not think it unfair to suggest there has been a change of attitude on the part of the Fine Gael Party overnight, with regard to this Prices Bill. That was demonstrated by Deputy Dillon. He wrote off this Bill completely and merely used his contribution here as a general attack on the Fianna Fáil Party. He may be right in what he says about the Fianna Fáil Party in respect of other things. We are concerned here by the fact that the Government, at long last, have shown some signs they are concerned about prices. It ought to be said, too, that the trade union movement, of which practically all of us here are members, understand, as other Parties here must understand, that there has been a voluntary control by the workers for the past 18 months in regard to wages.
I wonder whether we can get back to the amendment?
We are talking about the amendment, about the section and about stability in prices.
Acting Chairman
We will get back to the section afterwards.
I would like to claim the same umbrella protection as other Deputies have got.
Acting Chairman
I am afraid that will not be in order. We are going back to Second Reading speeches.
With regard to an incomes and wages policy, the trade union members themselves, by agreement with the employers, have operated a standstill for 2½ years. Deputy Donegan shakes his head.
Do not think I am against wage increases.
I am not saying the Deputy is.
Acting Chairman
We have gone away from the amendment and on to matters which are entirely irrelevant in a discussion of the amendment.
Suffice it to say that this National Wage Agreement has been honoured. We want to ensure in this instrument, by the action of the Government, that any increases that the workers have got over the past 18 months, and may get in the next 12 months, will be real increases and will not be taken from them by any undue price increases.
There is no argument in principle in regard to the 12 months which does not apply to six months.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted, stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 15.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Boylan, Terence.
- Brady, Philip.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Don.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling Joe.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fahey, John.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Foley, Desmond.
- Gallagher, James.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gibbons, James M.
- Gilbridge, Eugene.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, James J.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moore, Seán.
- Moran, Michael.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
- O'Connor Timothy.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Smith, Patrick.
Níl
- Byrne, Henry.
- Casey, Seán.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, Denis.
- Mullen, Michael.
- Norton, Patrick.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Tierney, Patrick.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Carty and Geoghegan; Níl: Deputies James Tully and Pattison.
Question declared carried.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 6, line 16, to delete "declaring".
This is a drafting amendment notified by the parliamentary draftsman. The word "declaring" is not necessary in the subsection.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4.
In page 8, after line 3, to insert the following:
22B. The Minister may from time to time by order provide for the establishment, constitution and powers of bodies of persons to advise him in relation to any or all or some of the powers and functions for the time being conferred on the Minister by virtue of this Part."
This enables the Minister to set up a body or bodies, and in that context I should like to explain that the prices advisory committees which it is now possible for the Minister to set up are limited in their personnel to be selected from a panel of 12 people— a panel already in existence under the Act. They are limited in their numbers to no fewer than three and no more than five. This section enables the Minister to set up a body without limitation in numbers, or without any restriction on personnel, and in the order or appointment, the Minister can give them whatever powers he possesses under the Act—powers to summon witnesses, to examine on oath, and any such powers necessary in any particular case or set of circumstances. This is looking for more flexibility.
We accept the principle of the Minister's suggestion, but there is one question in our minds as to the powers of these bodies. What are the limitations that can be put on the powers of these bodies? The Minister seems to have indicated that they can have any sort of powers. Will they have powers to go in to a business premises and demand to see the books? Is there merely a limitation in the ordinary common law that would debar him from giving very excessive powers or is he bound by the powers enshrined in the Bill? We would want a rather more detailed explanation of the powers of these bodies.
These powers are in this Bill, and they will be given to these bodies in the order of appointment.
The powers referred to are limited by the limitation of the powers conferred in the Bill?
Yes, but these are not limited powers. As the Deputy knows, they are quite extensive.
They are quite extensive, but the Minister will not give powers beyond the powers enshrined in the Bill.
I cannot.
He cannot. That is all I wanted to know.
I do not think we know sufficient about this. In any case, prices advisory bodies have not been eminently successful since 1958. There was provision for prices advisory committees in the 1958 Act, I think. A panel was established by the Minister and, incidentally, he invited the trade union movement to nominate, I think, two members.
The panel is created on a sectional or vocational basis.
We want to go back a little. He invited the Trade Union Congress to nominate members over a number of years and I think it was for about three years. None of the nominees submitted by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions was ever asked to act, so much so that they told the Minister they were resigning and did in fact resign. In recent times, that is, since the introduction of the turnover tax, these Prices Advisory Committees were reconstituted and the Trade Union Congress did supply at least one nominee and they did investigate the price of soap, canned foods and houses. I think they were the three main items. I do not know what these advisory bodies will do. Will they, as the Minister said in reply to Deputy Donegan, act only in accordance with the provisions of this temporary measure and have no other outside functions that would hold them, in accordance with the powers conferred on the Minister by order of the Government?
Yes.
That is clear in any case. We would like to know if, in fact, they will be constituted as a tribunal which will be empowered to look for certain information and empowered to look into price increases in public, making their reports available to the public. The Minister will note we have an amendment asking for a permanent tribunal. This amendment is designed to have a prices tribunal established permanently, apart from any of these emergencies, because we believe there will always be an emergency as far as prices are concerned. This establishment of price advisory bodies is a temporary measure, so to speak. Perhaps the Minister will indicate at this stage whether he would be prepared to accept our amendment for permanent establishment of price tribunals to act on the direction of the Minister where it is considered there are undue price increases, that is, without any emergency order being made by the Government.
That is going back to the basic question of seeking these powers at all, back again to the Government philosophy in relation to prices in normal circumstances, which is that competition, if free and unhampered, is the best regulator of prices.
This amending legislation is introduced by the Government because the Government foresee possible economic situations where temporary extra powers of this nature may be taken and may be useful. So in this section the body set up would be for a temporary period by Government order. It may be extended by a continuation order for 6/12 to 18 months but certainly in a situation assessed by the Government to be an economic situation which warrants this interference. I have left it flexible and I have sought flexibility right through this amending legislation, but the type of body to be set up, called a tribunal, would hear evidence or demand documents and would have any of the powers the Minister has to hear this evidence in public.
Where in the Bill, or in this amendment, does it say they may sit in public?
I can make an order empowering them, just the same as I have for what I do. In fact, I shall have to. My private investigations are open to the public in this Parliament. I can by order say this body will be a tribunal to hear such and such a case in public. They will have all the powers I would have in carrying out the investigations, powers given to me under section 22 (a) (i) (b) and (c). When I say I am making it flexible, apart from any tribunal investigating a particular case, I could set up a body which would advise me on the whole field of prices. I said last night that I intended that my first act when I have the powers would be to investigate at once the distribution costs of meat and potatoes and, at the same time, to set up a body which would advise me on whatever other commodities should be investigated immediately.
That is a function for a body which would not have the functions of a tribunal. This section gives me flexibility in that I can set up a tribunal type of body, or an advisory body, or a body to direct my other investigations and, as I said before, the powers to investigate are the swift powers which a Minister can use at once, the powers of the Prices Advisory Committee which I am asking the Dáil to extend on a permanent basis, and the power to set up an investigating body to hear in public the case for or against price increase.
I am not clear as to whether the Minister has power to direct that the inquiry will be in public. Would the Minister point it out to me?
I have to specify it in an order. You do not need power in the Act to do that. There is nothing in law to say that an investigation carried out by the Minister must be secret. It is the Minister who decides it is proper, or for the public good, or for any reason, that an investigation is better carried out in private or in public. There is nothing in the law to prevent me deciding what shall be done in private. I mention the word "private" but there is nothing private or secret because investigations carried out are subject to Parliamentary Questions.
The Minister in his conversation with Deputy Corish seems to have gone further than this proposed amendment indicates. He now mentions the setting up of tribunals.
I gave a different name to a body.
The Minister mentioned the word "tribunal". As far as I see, it is an advisory body who advise the Minister. I would understand a tribunal to be a judicial body which could in fact say that price is excessive and that the price should be fixed at such and such. In that way the tribunal would be advising him but would be a judicial body.
It would be recommending to me.
This is an unhappy word.
Yes, but I used it in the hope that the Labour Party would accept its use for the body.
In substitution for ours?
Yes.
I should like to tell the Minister that we put in our amendment for the establishment of a public tribunal deliberately.
I know that.
We know now where we are. The Minister's power to establish prices advisory bodies is dependent on the Government making an order declaring an emergency. I want to have enshrined in the permanent legislation the establishment of a tribunal the Minister can use or operate during any period.
(Cavan): I should like to ask the Minister a question. This amendment confers on the Minister the power to establish bodies and to provide for their constitution and powers. I should like him to tell the House what powers he proposes to confer on these bodies. I presume he has in mind some general or definite powers. I think that when power of this sort is being conferred on the Minister, he should give the House as much information about it as possible. I was not here for all of the discussion on this amendment but since I came into the House, I do not think the Minister has made it clear what powers he proposes to confer on the proposed bodies.
The powers given to me under section 22 (a) (i), paragraphs (b) and (c), to require any person to furnish to the Minister any information in his possession that the Minister may reasonably require to enable him to exercise his functions in this Department and to require that person to furnish the Minister with any books, documents or records in his power, possession or control that the Minister may reasonably require to enable him to perform his function. I can transfer the powers which this Bill would give me, by an order, to such a body.
(Cavan): That is clear.
Mr. O'Leary
Our only problem concerns later on. We are anxious that the Minister should be under no impression that, by selling this amendment to us, the later rather more ambitious improvement in the Bill which we suggest would go by the board; in other words, that the Minister would say to us: "On the one hand, you provide now for temporary powers for me and these should be quite sufficient in the circumstances and I see no reason for your later tribunal." The only reason we would agree to support this amendment would be by regarding it as a frill, if the Minister wants additional frills, so to speak, on advisory bodies. We have had rather unhappy experience of the operation of these bodies in the past, their secrecy——
It is a distinct——
Mr. O'Leary
I know this is a departure but it has elements of the later tribunal we suggest. We consider that the tribunal would be a more realistic proposition than this kind of temporary measure here suggested. I am sure that by order, the Minister can provide most things under this Bill. Our concern was to bring out in black and white what we should like this Bill properly to perform and to rescue it from the machinations of the Minister's mind on this matter. I know that the Minister has these powers in the recesses of his mind. We want to bring out accountability to Dáil Éireann for movement in prices. The more this Bill contains an accountability clause the more successful and realistic the Bill will be. Our anxiety is that this amendment should be seen in no way as removing the necessity for having this tribunal that we also wish to have included in this Bill.
It does not remove my accountability.
(South Tipperary): I want some clarification. This is possibly the most important section in the Bill. This is the executive arm of the Bill. It seems to me, as far as I can glean from the Minister's rather scanty dissertation on the subject, that he means to set up two rather different things. He means to set up advisory bodies on a vocational basis, purely advisory and, naturally, vocational, because they would cover different aspects of the economy. They, I presume, would advise him on the aspect of it with which they are familiar.
Am I to understand also, that apart from these numerous advisory bodies, the Minister would have one prices court, shall we call it, though somebody called it a tribunal? If he is, will people give evidence there in public under oath and will rebutting evidence be allowed? Will they have legal representation and, above all, will it be subject to appeal to a higher court and where would they have the appeal?
Finally, who will determine the cases referred to the prices court? Take an outside body who feel aggrieved and who make representations to the Minister and say they believe prices to be excessive and the matter is referred to the prices court. Will that be a quasi-judicial body?
My microphone was covered and the Deputy did not hear what I said earlier. When I was talking about people selected on a panel, I was talking about prices advisory committees already in existence but which are restricted in their numbers and the panel from which they can be chosen under the 1958 Act. I want it, as it were, to set up bodies without restriction in relation to the numbers or the type of person on them. In no part of this legislation am I seeking to transfer my responsibility. It is in relation to my investigatory powers that I would have this body to be able to carry out in public and seek evidence under oath and seek and demand the production of documents and books.
I may have confused the Deputy by my earlier remarks in relation to my powers. These bodies should be set up to hear a case in the form of a body to advise me in the application of my powers under this Bill but in all cases the decisions must be made by the Minister. It is his responsibility and there would not be an appeal from the Minister's decision. It would not otherwise be possible to manage price control especially on the temporary basis on which we see it.
Mr. O'Leary
Would this be, in other words, your representative to advise you of the effect of a decision that you were likely to take in a particular area—more or less to give forewarning of reaction?
I envisage it as a body which would hear in public the evidence which would later be presented to me and make recommendations on it in regard to prices.
Mr. O'Leary
This is not mentioned in the section.
I want flexibility. I could make an order.
Mr. O'Leary
This is so flexible that it could mean anything.
This is a most difficult task. We want to be able to approach it in the most flexible way. We want to have all the powers of investigation.
Mr. O'Leary
I do not want to bring in again a reference to the number of teeth which must be used or to talk about them as necessary to be used under this Bill, when enacted, but this section could be anything from a group of economists advising about price trends over the Second Programme. It could be a section of the National Farmers Association and Muintir na Tíre advising about anything in their area and it could also be a public hearing.
The purpose of the whole exercise is to try to control prices. This is the Government's intention and it is the purpose of the flexibility. You could set up a rigid machinery which would look nice on paper and in the statute book but would prevent you from effectively doing anything. I am seeking a flexible power which could be applied in many ways because, as everybody has acknowledged here this morning, the control of prices will be a very difficult task.
Mr. O'Leary
I agree, but we are conscious of the disadvantages in a so-called free economy. You could be courting ridicule to say at any stage that you could control prices here. We wish to found a different type of system under which we would make the Minister's job easier in the future, if he is around then. This is so flexible and can mean so many things that it creates a problem for us. Our attitude to this Bill is to make it as effective as possible. Admittedly, you cannot globally survey a prices measure in the economy we have but we should bring it down as much as possible to fundamentals to deal with particular situations and we should bring it down to black and white.
To help to make this more effective, the Minister has powers under which he can do almost anything in any circumstances. In some of our amendments, we have suggested timing for different actions. That is why we suggest a prices tribunal. This advisory body can be a public hearing or a technical advisory panel. What we had at the back of our minds was our experience with the prices advisory committees. The trade union movement was extremely disappointed. Trade unionists were participating, so to speak, in an alibi that there was some machinery to deal with prices when in fact there was not. There was no publicising of the affairs of these committees. Nobody knew how decisions were arrived at. At the end, you merely had a bleak announcement that such and such a price increase could not be offset and had to take place. I consider that 22B is so flexible at the moment that more information would certainly be required. If the Minister wishes to turn it into a public body, he should suggest at this stage what his attitude is to our amendment for a prices tribunal. If he says this could also be a public hearing——
I think the Labour Party amendment is fundamentally different in principle. What you want is a permanent body and what I am suggesting is that, over a period when they are required, the Minister should have power to set up a body to publicly investigate prices or to set up other bodies, as he may think fit at the time. My intention is to have powers of investigation of every kind.
Mr. O'Leary
In other words, you see this as a realistic answer from your Party in our situation?
We are on two wavelengths. You want a permanent body. I think ours is the temporary equivalent of what you want.
Mr. O'Leary
This is what you envisage should be done in our situation?
Your tribunal would probably be one that would make judgments. Mine would make recommendations to the Minister. I am proposing a temporary body; yours would be a permanent machine.
Did I hear the Minister say that, in his view, there could not be any court of appeal?
I was anticipating the Fine Gael amendment.
Did the Minister say he was not prepared to accept amendment No. 8?
I said it in reference to something said by Deputy Hogan of South Tipperary. I am not on your amendment yet.
(South Tipperary): Without entering into the question as between a permanent prices tribunal and merely a temporary one to deal with the present economic crisis, in order to clarify how these advisory bodies will work, would the Minister give us an indication of a specific instance? Take, for example, a housewives consumer association, if there is such, who wrote to the Minister and said that the prices of babies' shoes were excessive and would the Minister do something about it. The Minister comes along with his Act and proceeds to do something about it. Could he tell us briefly how he will proceed?
In view of the contributions by Deputy Corish and Deputy Fitzpatrick, would it be expedient to take amendments Nos. 4 and 9 together? They are apparently related.
They are not. The Minister's amendment is something he can operate in a temporary situation by Government order. Our amendment is designed to include another section in the parent Act, the 1958 Act.
(South Tipperary): Could the Minister tell me how he would proceed in the instance I gave?
In any case my powers of investigation are under three headings. First, it would be departmentally investigated; secondly, there could be an investigation by the prices advisory committee; and, thirdly, there could be power under which a body could hold a public inquiry or investigation of prices. This could be done under the powers I normally have or which I could give by order. I can use any of these three methods. I imagine that swift action would require a departmental investigation. The setting up of a body is slower, but it may be desirable sometimes to have an investigation in public.
(South Tipperary): You have the departmental body for immediate action. The other one is slower.
I imagine it would be slower, but it would be desirable in some cases to have it held in public.
Amendment agreed to.
On a point of order, section 22A was not put to the House. I wanted to make a general comment on it.
We are on section 1. The Deputy can raise the matter on the section.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 9, lines 23 to 25, to delete "under section 3 of the Local Authorities (Combined Purchasing) Act, 1925, or".
When the Prices Bill was being enacted in 1958, the Local Authorities (Combined Purchasing) Act, 1939, which repealed the Local Authorities (Combined Purchasing) Act, 1935, had not yet been brought into effect. It has since been brought into effect and the Local Authorities (Combined Purchasing) Act, 1935, has since been repealed. This is a drafting amendment to remove reference to that Act since it has now been repealed.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 10, after subsection (1), to insert the following subsection:
(2) The Prices Act, 1958, is hereby further amended as follows:
(a) in section 3, by the addition to the section of the following: "a reference to carrying out work or a process shall be construed as including a reference to agreeing or offering to carry out work or a process or inviting an offer for its carrying out;
a reference to an offer to carry out work or a process shall be construed as including a reference to a notification by a person of the charge proposed by him for its carrying out made by the publication of a list of charges or by the furnishing of a condition or otherwise".
(b) in section 10, by—
(i) the substitution for paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of the following paragraphs:
"(a) the prices charged for the commodity specified in the warrant,
(b) the methods of marketing that commodity,
(c) the charges made for rendering the service specified in the warrant,
(d) the methods of rendering that service,
(e) the charges made for carrying out (other than under a contract of service) work specified in the warrant,
(f) the methods of carrying out that work,
(g) the charges made for carrying out (other than under a contract of service) the process specified in the warrant,
(h) the methods of carrying out that process.",
and
(ii) the substitution in subsection (3) of "persons selling commodities or of persons rendering services or carrying out work or processes" for "manufacturers or of persons rendering services",
(c) in section 14, by—
(i) the substitution in subsection (1) of "persons selling it" for "manufacturers thereof" and of "such persons" for "manufacturers",
and
(ii) the insertion of the following subsection:
"(3) Where the Minister, having considered a report of an Advisory Committee, is of opinion that the charges made for carrying out any work or process by persons carrying it out are excessive owing to causes within the control of those persons or to undue labour costs, the Minister may by order fix the maximum charge which may be made for carrying out that work or process.",
(d) in section 18, by the insertion in paragraph (a) after "service" of "or work or a process",
(e) in section 21, by the insertion in subsections (1) and (2) after "service" of "or work or a process",
(f) in section 24, by the insertion in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) after "commodities" of "or the business of rendering a service or carrying out work or a process", and
(g) in the Second Schedule, by the insertion in paragraph 8 after "any service" of "or for carrying out any work or process" and after "that service" of "or carrying out that work or process".
I have already referred to this change in the powers of the prices advisory committees in existence under the 1958 Act. Under that Act their powers are limited. I have a series of amendments which the draftsman tells me are necessary to put this on a permanent basis. They are meant to extend the powers of these prices advisory committees. At the moment they can investigate goods at manufacturer level, but not at the wholesale or retail levels except in a situation of emergency which causes a scarcity. We seek to extend the powers of these committees to investigate prices and costs and services at all levels. There is also an addition in the extent. In the 1958 Act their investigations are limited to selling and services. By definition, I want to add in "works and processes." This arises from the extension of their other powers. This first amendment is a definition amendment consequent on the extension of powers I seek for the prices advisory committees.
We have studied these amendments and have no objection to them. We agree with what the Minister has said.
This is permanent?
I want the House to be quite clear on that. This is a permanent change in the Act. Their powers of investigation on a permanent basis are quite limited. This extends the powers of investigation of prices advisory committees to all levels—retail, wholesale and manufacturing—and the same for works and processes.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 10, after subsection (1) to insert the following subsection:—
( ) An inquiry under this Part of this Act shall be held in public and a person so affected by the inquiry will be entitled either to appear in person or be professionally represented.
We put down this amendment for the purpose of seeing to it that a seller or manufacturer of goods who was the subject of a standstill order would be in a position to have the inquiry into price held in public and also to appear himself or be professionally represented. It appears to me that the Minister's amendment No. 4, as he intends to implement it, would take care of the first part of our amendment. I would be interested now to know if it would be the Minister's intention, where he sets up a committee under amendment No. 4, to allow persons affected to be either professionally represented or to be present themselves, to make their own submissions on the relevant price. If that were so, it would satisfy us.
On reading these amendments, I got the impression that the Deputy felt that people would be on trial. I see the application of this Bill as a fact-finding investigation and it would not put any person on trial. I am just wondering if the Deputy had that idea in his mind, that somebody would be on trial and would need to be represented. It would not serve the purpose of the Bill if a person sent a professional representative on a defending basis. If a person cannot come for good reason, everybody will accept that, but, generally, in relation to the whys and wherefores of price increases, I would prefer if the person responsible and dealing with it gave his own evidence. Such investigation would be carried out by a body set up and "publicly carrying out" would cover that point. The departmental investigations, of course, are subject to question here in the Dáil. The inquiries may be in public or may not but I think the whole spirit of the Bill is that it should be fact-finding investigation rather than putting anybody in the position of defending himself.
Yes, but our anxiety is that a person might find himself affected by a price fixing order and would have no recourse to anywhere where he could make his case. If the committee set up by the Minister under amendment No. 4 does not look for information from the seller or manufacturer affected, then that person has not the right to give them information. The Minister has indicated that either the committee or the departmental officials would be prepared to accept submissions from the person affected. That suits us all right. The assurance that the departmental investigation is subject to question here which must be answered and that the committee investigation would be in public would further help us in our difficulty. The Minister said to Deputy Corish, when amendment No. 4 was under discussion, that the investigations would be in public. I understand him now as saying that they might be in public or they might be in private. I should like the Minister to clarify that matter.
They may be in public. I should like to maintain flexibility there. We are going into a situation where we want to prepare for contingencies that we may not be able to visualise in advance. Cases could arise which would be better heard in public and there might be others where it might do damage if they were heard in public. So I think I should not tie myself to either public or private hearings.
Does the Minister assure us here that anybody affected by a price fixing order will, as far as he can ensure it, get every opportunity to make submissions and that these submissions will be seriously considered?
This would be the rule. In so far as we know a person so affected, the rule would be to seek his evidence.
(South Tipperary): Do I understand from the Minister that such a committee may or may not sit in public and that before such committee a person trying to justify the price of his commodity may not be professionally represented?
There is no fixed rule. This would be a decision to be made by, I presume, a reasonable Minister. The investigations would be fact-finding as to the cause of prices, and so it would be almost essential to have the person primarily concerned there himself. There may be circumstances in which a man, for health or other reasons, would not be able to give evidence and certainly I would expect a Minister to behave reasonably and allow him to be represented but the idea of being professionally represented brings up the notion that the man is on trial and has to be protected by, say, the legal profession. If that is what is in the Deputy's mind, I think this investigation would be on fact, not on the person's guilt or otherwise.
(South Tipperary): Yes, a fact-finding investigation. Is the income tax court not a fact-finding court? The same situation would seem to arise here as arises there. If you go before an income tax court, you are guilty until you are proved innocent— a reversal of the ordinary civil code— and the evidence is taken in camera.
I mean that it is an investigation as to the facts in relation to prices rather than the guilt of a person. I do not see any person being put in the position of being guilty of an offence under this Bill. It does happen that companies are represented by their secretaries and accountants as part of the firm but I would consider it more desirable, if we are to establish the true price and the justifiability of a price, that the person intimately concerned with it should appear and give his evidence.
(South Tipperary): Surely the Minister will agree that a person going in there to make his case may be quite a good businessman but may be completely hopeless as regards defending himself?
If that is so, a reasonable Minister would accept a representative.
(South Tipperary): He would need somebody to make his case. There are thousands of such persons. Even though we are anxious to have price control, there must also be justice given to the man whose case is being investigated. He has his rights, too. Surely the fundamental right of having somebody at his elbow to advise him should not be denied him? Even the obnoxious income tax courts, where the dice is entirely loaded against the citizen, always allow an accountant to be present.
What has the Deputy against the income tax courts? What did they do to him?
(South Tipperary): What did they do to us all?
What did they not do?
Most of the evidence here would be documentary evidence. It is desirable, as Deputy Donegan pointed out, that a person affected should appear and give evidence. If he were unable to do so a reasonable Minister would accept his representatives. It is done. Secretaries and accountants of firms have already appeared and their evidence will be accepted.
Will the Minister be amenable to advice from the advisory bodies as to whether or not a hearing should be held in public?
Yes. I would not like to have such firm machinery as would mean we would be waiting weeks for decisions.
The Minister is looking for an awful lot of flexibility.
When I get the Bill, the first thing I will have is the two investigations I have mentioned by committees and the second is to set up a body to advise me as to what other commodities to investigate.
Surely these advisory bodies would be best fitted to advise the Minister whether a hearing should be in public?
I do not exclude it. I shall think it over.
Are we clear on this? If an advisory body is set up to investigate the price of a particular commodity, will it be open to bodies like RGDATA, the Drapers' Chamber of Trade, the Federated Union of Employers or other bodies representative of the trade which is concerned with the particular commodity being investigated, to appear on behalf of those concerned with the production or the distribution of the commodity for the purpose of bringing facts to the attention of the tribunal?
"Tribunal" would be a wrong word in so far as they would not have power except to report to me, but it would be essential to the working of such a body to have people with this special knowledge coming before it to give evidence.
May I take it what the Minister has in mind is that the appearance of an individual trader before the committee would be the exception rather than the general rule, that ordinarily for the purpose of furnishing facts, the Minister would look to the trade organisations but would be prepared to hear a specific person if that person applied to be heard? Ordinarily, such information would be given by the professional staff of the organisation representing the group of persons concerned in the manufacture or distribution of the commodity being examined.
Everybody claiming to have an interest will be heard.
If he so wishes.
If he wishes to be heard. In some cases the Minister or the body set up by him may think it desirable to require a person to give evidence but I imagine this would be more at manufacturer level where one person could influence prices. In the sphere of trading, it is unlikely that one person would have a wide effect on prices and be called upon himself. However, power is being sought to call upon people to give evidence.
But ordinarily it would be the trade organisation?
Or anybody having an interest. It is a matter of finding out facts and anybody who has an interest, which would include a trade organisation, would be heard.
The Minister is giving us an assurance that anybody who properly should give evidence and who wishes to go before one of these committees will be allowed to do so?
Yes.
May we be assured on this? If an individual is summoned, he may, as of right, attend accompanied by expert advisers of his own? The situation might arise in which a citizen is summoned to give evidence before a body of this kind and is informed at the door that he may not be accompanied by his accountant or such other of his advisers as he requires.
I do not think that will arise.
I would attach more importance to the assurance if the Minister would say it would not arise.
I cannot see it arising. Most of the evidence sought would be documentary but if oral evidence is required, it must be remembered that the person is not on trial. These are inquiries into the facts and the more evidence that can be adduced, the more help it will be to the investigation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 10, after subsection (1) to insert the following subsection:
( ) A person affected by an order under this Part of this Act may appeal against such order to an Appeal Tribunal constituted as hereinafter set out. The Appeal Tribunal provided under this Part of this Act shall consist of a Chairman nominated by the Chief Justice and of one representative nominated by the Federated Union of Employers and one representative nominated by the Irish Trade Union Congress.
There should be an appeal in the case of a person who feels he has been improperly treated in respect of a prices standstill order or any such operation under this Bill. This is the form of appeal board that we suggest would meet the case. I am sure the Minister would agree that only a small number would be on the board, which would mean he would get a decision very quickly. Even the Revenue Commissioners mentioned by Deputy Hogan cannot make a decision from which there is no appeal. There is an appeal to the court. We agree with the Minister that that would be an unwieldy procedure in this context. Our suggestion is the appeal board of three as set out in the amendment. This appeal board might never be asked to sit but it should be there. It is possible, although I am not very good on that line of country, that without such an appeal board, some of the terms of the Bill may be unconstitutional as far as the individual citizen is concerned.
On the surface, it would appear just that we should have an appeal but the orders mentioned in the Deputy's amendment are ministerial orders fixing prices, imposing a standstill on prices or charges or revoking a ministerial order. The ones that are likely to give rise to appeal are those fixing prices or imposing a standstill. This power is sought by the Government in circumstances where they regard it as essential to the economy to control prices. It is not a permanent part of our normal, everyday existence. An appeal beyond the Government in such circumstances would not seem to be logical. It would also make the machinery slow and unwieldy. I do not see the logic of having an appeal beyond the Government in the case where the Government are acting to protect the economy.
The Government may be acting to protect the economy, as they think, but if a price is fixed for a commodity which means that a particular manufacturer, importer, wholesaler or retailer has to sell at less than the cost to him so that he is put out of business or suffers loss of business, then there should be an appeal against the decision that could bring about that state of affairs. Our intention in putting down this amendment was to make this appeal board as simple and as small as possible, to make it so small that a decision would be forthcoming very quickly. The Minister has described how he intends to make these advisory committees which he is setting up work, and it appears to me that in these committees agreement on prices may be got in 90 per cent of the cases with representatives of the producers, manufacturers and so on, before the price fixing order is made. It would be only in a very rare case that a company or citizens might find themselves in the position of being unable to carry on because of what they regarded as an error on the part of the advisory committee which advised the Minister and on whose advice the Minister acted.
The Minister would do well to accept this amendment. It would be wrong that people should have no appeal in these cases. The Minister has qualified his statement in regard to the operation of these advisory committees in public. They will work in public or in private or there may be a departmental investigation which is subject to question here. He says that whether it is in public or private will depend on which is more suitable in the particular instance. I can agree with him very much in that. At the same time, one must face the fact that if an advisory committee is instructed by the Minister to sit in private and produces a price for a commodity in respect of which the Minister makes a price fixing order then a citizen, a company, or any other group of handlers or producers may find themselves with no public hearing of their case, a decision made and no right of appeal. This seems to me to be going too far.
I sincerely hope—I think the Minister similarly hopes—that this legislation will be on the shelf in six months time and will never be used again. This is a crisis measure directed, of course, to the Congress of Trade Unions and the Federated Union of Employers and it would be wrong, I think, if any group should find themselves the subject of an order after an investigation behind closed doors and without any right of appeal. If the Minister will not meet us, we will not withdraw this amendment.
I would be more inclined to keep the responsibility with the Minister. I cannot see any action by the Minister which would put a firm out of business. I agree there should be appeal to the Minister but I do not see the implementation of these powers in the same way as the Deputy appears to see it. Certainly I do not see any Minister taking action which would put a firm out of business. I refer to unreasonable action. At the same time, appeal from the Minister, while one might think it would be used in the odd case only, could be used in every case to delay and to negative the effect of action.
I do not believe it would be used in every case. One must remember that action under this Bill will be taken always in a time of political exigency, a time in which the Government are under heavy pressure because of balance of payments problems or other financial crises. In that context, there will be the temptation on the Government and the Minister for Industry and Commerce of the day to restrict prices to a lower level than might be perhaps financially desirable. The case I am worrying about is that in which the advisory committee at the behest of the Minister acts in private and produces a price which the producer or the manufacturer regards as uneconomic. In those circumstances, I believe there should be appeal machinery.
The normal practice is to bring in the people affected by the report. It is not a fait accompli. It is not secret. The normal thing is to discuss the report with those concerned and the normal practice is on the basis of co-operation.
Normal practice is one thing. Normal practice will very often produce agreement after there has been disagreement. While that is true, there is the odd case of a committee sitting in private, a price being fixed, a person, company or group being aggrieved, and no right of appeal. That is fundamentally wrong.
There is appeal to the Minister.
But the Minister, having heard the evidence, will have made an order.
I must work on the assumption that I am a reasonable person and would not, therefore, make an unreasonable order.
The Minister is a very reasonable person but we cannot guarantee that he will always be there.
Not me, but the Minister for Industry and Commerce in any country must be assumed to act reasonably in situations in which businesses are involved. I cannot see any reasonable Minister taking an unreasonable action, such as fixing a price a firm cannot support, a price which closes down the firm.
If the Minister is adamant, we will register our protest that this situation could develop.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
On the Second Stage I referred to control of the percentage profit. During the emergency, as I recollect, it was laid down that the wholesaler could take 15 per cent profit and the retailer 25 per cent. I think similar machinery should be available again now. As I read the Bill, the Minister will fix a price and there will be no percentage profit. I should like to hear the Minister on that.
There is a section in relation to the basis on which a price will be fixed. It can be fixed on trends from the point of view of the main ingredients or the proportions of different ingredients, or other considerations, but it is left to the Minister to make definitions.
Our position is that we must ensure that this legislation passes in the best form possible. That is what we have been trying to achieve. That does not mean that we agree completely with all the provisions or that we believe it will entirely succeed. We hope it will succeed if it is ever used. Candidly, we believe it will reach the same shelf as the Principal Act very shortly after it becomes law. We believe this situation is a temporary one and will demonstrate to the Minister the difficulty there is in controlling prices. We believe that difficulty will put this piece of legislation of the shelf with the Principal Act.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Mr. O'Leary
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 10, before section 2, to insert the following new section:—
The Prices Act, 1958, is hereby amended by the insertion after Part III of the following Part:—
"Part IIIB. Establishment of Prices Tribunal.
23a (1) The Minister shall establish a Prices Tribunal consisting of seven members including a Chairman and Deputy Chairman.
(2) The Tribunal shall be empowered to do from time to time any or all or some of the following, that is to say:—
(a) enquire at public investigations into:—
(i) the prices charged for a specified commodity or specified commodities or for any commodities as respects the prices for which the Tribunal is satisfied that an enquiry should be held.
(ii) the charges made for rendering a specified service or specified services or for any services as respects the charges for which the Tribunal is satisfied that an enquiry should be held.
(iii) the charges made for carrying out (other than under a contract of service) specified work or any work as respects the charges for which the Tribunal is satisfied that an enquiry should be held, and
(iv) the charges made for carrying out (other than under a contract of service) a specified process or specified processes or any processes as respects the charges for which the Tribunal is satisfied that an enquiry should be held,
(b) require any person to furnish to the Tribunal any information in his possession that the Tribunal may reasonably require for enabling it to exercise its functions under this Part,
(c) require any person to furnish to the Tribunal any books, documents or records in his power, possession or control that the Tribunal may reasonably require for enabling it to function under this Part.
(3) The Tribunal shall publish a report on each enquiry held under the preceding subsection and shall, if it sees fit, make recommendations to the Minister on the matter.
(4) The Minister may require the Tribunal to conduct an enquiry into the price charged for any commodity or service."
In some of the changes already suggested we dealt more or less with the main provisions of this Bill. We have made up our minds fully on the changes we should like to see in the Bill. One of the principal changes we would like is investigation in public and we suggest that the investigating machinery should be a permanent feature of our economy. This distinguishes our approach from that of either Fine Gael or the Government Party. We are wholly behind the establishment of a permanent tribunal to investigate price increases. We do not believe every single case would come before that tribunal, because, as the Minister has suggested, there will be a number of committees engaged more or less on investigation. With all these extra powers and automatic notification, the Minister will have quite a file of information before him prior to any case being heard publicly before the tribunal.
We regard it as of paramount importance to have hearings in public and, from that point of view, it is important that this should be written into the Bill. We do not believe, like Fianna Fáil, that competition is enough. Neither do we believe, like Fine Gael, that exhortation and persuasion are sufficient. In the situation confronting us, we believe that for quite a period ahead the matter of prices will be one of increasing concern to us. Therefore, we must, with the limitations of having to depend on the Government Party to implement these proposals, see to it that as far as possible our fundamental policy is carried out. We must do our best to make this machinery effective and it is in this spirit we suggested the prices tribunal. We feel it is essential if the Government are to be serious about controlling prices. We do not believe that the previous section, 22B(4), is a realistic answer to the problem. We have gone exhaustively into all the different forms of machinery and as a result we feel we should give our support to the particular proposal now before the House.
When this was mentioned before, I tried to show the differences and similarities in the establishment of a prices tribunal as suggested by the Labour Party amendment and the establishment of a body under an earlier amendment of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. There is no essential difference in the powers of the body which the Labour Party want us to set up with powers to investigate prices of goods and services, power to require a person to furnish documents and books and records or to require a person to give evidence, power to publish a report. Any of the bodies I have set up could be made into such a tribunal and given such powers. There is no essential difference in their functioning.
So you are accepting the amendment?
We do not need it. The essential difference is that the Labour Party want to have this on a permanent basis. That is where we differ fundamentally. I sought power to set up bodies such as this in circumstances where the Government decided an order was necessary for the sake of the economy. There are restrictive matters in this amendment. It limits the investigation power to one seven-member body as distinct from the variety of investigating machinery I sought, and got, from the Dáil this morning. It would be restrictive in that sense, but the area of investigation and the type of investigation are the same. The fundamental difference is in having a permanent tribunal which is something I cannot accept. I have got permanent powers of investigating by extending the powers of the prices advisory committees. We have made a permanent change in the 1958 Act which will not be dependent on an order of the Government and I think that is all the power we need.
(South Tipperary): May I ask the Minister will the advisory bodies he sets up publish a report of every inquiry?
That can be done. I can make an order to have a report published. That probably will be done. Question put: "That the new section be inserted."
The Committee divided : Tá, 13; Nil, 63.
Tá
- Byrne, Henry.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, Denis.
- Mullen, Michael.
- Norton, Patrick.
- O'Connell, John F.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Andrews, David.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Boylan, Terence.
- Brady, Philip.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, James J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Don.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fahey, John.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzpatrick, Thomas J.
- (Dublin South-Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Foley, Desmond.
- Gallagher, James.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gibbons, James M.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, James J.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Patrick.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moore, Seán.
- Moran, Michael.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Smith, Patrick.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies James Tully and Pattison; Níl: Deputies Carty and Geoghegan.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.