Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Jul 1969

Vol. 241 No. 3

Decimal Currency (No. 2) Bill, 1969: Second Stage.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Haughey)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. In my Budget speech on 23rd April, 1968, I announced the Government's decision to change to decimal currency on the basis of the £, new penny system with effect from 15th February, 1971. As I mentioned on that occasion the weight of opinion had clearly come out in favour of this system and the Government, after full consideration, decided to adopt it as being the most convenient and practicable. Britain will adopt the same system on the same date. On 12th June, 1968, the House agreed to a Supplementary Estimate for expenses of the Irish Decimal Currency Board which I set up to facilitate the changeover to the new currency system.

The present Bill is the first of two which will be needed to give effect to the decision I have mentioned. It provides for the introduction of the new decimal system and coinage and for the discontinuance of the present shillings-and-pence system in due course. As indicated in the explanatory memorandum which I have circulated, a second Bill later this year will deal with other matters of detail. These are matters such as the conversion of bank balances, the effect of the change on hire purchase and other contracts and legal tender arrangements during the changeover period beginning on 15th February, 1971. The Decimal Currency Board is at present studying the matters that need to be dealt with in the second Bill, in consultation with the interests concerned.

Deputies will also see from the explanatory memorandum that most of the provisions in the Bill are technical provisions in relation to coinage. These follow the lines of provisions contained in the Coinage Act, 1950, which will be repealed. I shall comment briefly on some of the main new provisions.

Section 2 establishes the relationship between the £ and the new penny. The new penny will be equal in value to one-hundredth part of a £. Thus one new penny will equal 2.4 of our present pence, 5 new pence will equal 1s and so on. Section 3 authorises the issue of the new coins. As already announced it has been decided to issue six decimal coins. These are the

50 new pence	:	value 10s
10 new pence	:	value 2s
5 new pence	:	value 1s
2 new pence	:	value 4.3d
1 new penny	:	value 2.4d and
½ new penny	:	value 1.2d

The 50, 10 and 5 new penny coins will be cupro-nickel and the other three will be bronze. The new bronze coins will be lighter and easier to handle than the present bronze coins. The Bill does not prescribe details of the designs for the new coins. It is the practice for the Minister for Finance to do this by regulations. I announced the designs for the new coins a few months ago. Copies of an illustrated leaflet showing the design decided upon are available in the Library.

The legal tender limits set out in section 8 of the Bill are higher than those for the present coins. The 50 new penny coin will be legal tender for payment of amounts up to £10. This is appropriate in view of the high value of the coin—10s in present currency. The limits for the other coins are also being increased to bring them into line with present-day conditions. The 5 new penny and 10 new penny coins will be legal tender for amounts up to £5 while existing silver coins are legal tender for only £2. The legal tender limit for bronze decimal coins will be 20 new pence—4 shillings in present currency—as against 1/- for the present copper coins.

The Decimal Currency Board has recommended that some of the new coins should be issued in advance of 15th February, 1971 so that people can become accustomed to them before the changeover date. Sections 9 and 10 of the Bill would allow the Central Bank to issue the 5, 10 and 50 new penny coins in this way. These coins have exact equivalent values in £sd and can be used in these values until 15th February, 1971. Subject to the enactment of the legislation the Central Bank plans to start the issue of 5 new penny and 10 new penny coins this autumn and to put the 50 new penny coin into circulation early next year.

Deputies will note that section 16 of the Bill empowers the Minister for Industry and Commerce to make regulations prescribing how certain payments involving a halfpenny are to be varied when the ½d coin is demonetised on and from 1st August, 1969. The payments concerned are small premiums under industrial life assurance policies and payments under friendly society contracts. A large number of such payments involve an odd ½d. It is necessary to have a statutory provision to prescribe how these contractual payments are to be adapted to the new situation. Section 16 will enable the Minister for Industry and Commerce to ensure that the total amount payable over a period will be maintained constant in each case.

Information about the business and other preparations needed for the change to decimal currency has been published by the Decimal Currency Board over the period since its establishment. Copies of bulletins issued some months ago are available in the Library. Up to the present the board has been placing most emphasis on publicity measures to persuade the business sector to get preparations made in good time—in particular to ensure that accounting and other machines will be capable of decimal working. In general the response by businesses appears to be satisfactory. In this year's Budget I announced some special tax concessions in respect of decimalised machinery including a provision to allow "free depreciation" for new machinery purchased for decimalisation.

Preparations by the Post Office, the Department of Education, the other Departments, and the public sector generally are proceeding. The detailed instruction of the general public about the use of decimal coinage will be effected through an intensive campaign in the autumn of 1970. Thus it will be fresh in people's minds when Decimal Day arrives on 15th February, 1971.

In conclusion, I hope that any businessman who has been tardy about preparing for decimal currency will be stimulated by the passage of this Bill to take early action. The advantages to be obtained from the decimal system are well worth achieving and it is in everybody's interest that the changeover should go through smoothly and quickly. Timely preparations will ensure that this objective is achieved.

Perhaps I might also mention at this stage a question which has presented itself to the minds of some Deputies, as to why this is called the Decimal Currency (No. 2) Bill. The reason for that is that the first piece of decimal currency legislation, the Decimal Currency Bill, 1969, was introduced on the 16th April, 1969, and the Dáil was dissolved before the text was circulated. We must, therefore, call this legislation the Decimal Currency (No. 2) Bill.

Dr. Browne

Is there any estimate as to how much it will cost to change over?

Mr. Haughey

It is very difficult to say. The actual publicity arrangements undertaken for the Government by the Decimal Currency Board cost perhaps £200,000. What it will cost the community as a whole is very difficult to measure. An estimate of between £2 million and £3 million was made by a working party, but I would not place a great deal of reliance on such an estimate.

Mr. O'Higgins

In this Bill which the Minister has introduced we are dealing with a proposal to alter our present currency, and I suppose one can accept that in relation to developments internationally and in Europe in particular, some step along those lines is probably unavoidable. Having said that, one, nevertheless, must look with some doubt on the manner in which this is being done. It appears to me that here, as so often in the past, we are merely doing exactly as the British have done; we are adopting the same system as they have already adopted. It may be that that is again a thing which could not be avoided, but I should like to see it argued and reasoned out.

The Minister indicated in his statement the general outlines of what the Bill proposes. It proposes to set up a new coinage: 50 new pence value 10s; ten new pence value 2s; five new pence value 1s; two new pence value 4.8 pence; one new penny value 2.4 pence and ½ new penny value 1.2 pence. I should like to know from the Minister has there been any study or appreciation of the effect this turnover will have on our present price system and, accordingly, on the cost of living. There will be no sixpence and none of the usual units to which we have been accustomed. It does appear, therefore, that there must be an effect on prices. The Minister and the board will, I think, have considered this aspect and I should like the Minister to give some indication to the House as to what the impact is likely to be. I hope he will be able to say the change will not have a large impact, but some information on this aspect should be given.

While it is not strictly relevant to the Bill, but since it has been referred to by the Minister, I should like to express some doubt about the suggested design of the new coins. Upon what basis was this design selected? It does not appear to be in accordance with the practice up to this. There has been some public reaction against the suggested design. I do not know whether the Minister is committed to this design or whether there can be any further re-examination of the matter.

Mr. Keating

In general, I welcome the introduction by the Government of this alien system of mensuration. I should like to echo the note of perturbation voiced by Deputy O'Higgins. The opportunity will certainly be used to adjust prices slightly upwards. Where a decision arises shopkeepers will inevitably give it to their own advantage and against the interests of their customers. This is something to which public reference must be made at an early stage; it is something for which the public must be prepared. I do not mean they must be prepared for rising prices; I mean they must be prepared to struggle against that price rise which is not inevitable.

I notice that the Minister used this occasion to hope that any businessmen who had been tardy about preparing for decimal currency will be stimulated into preparation now by the passage of this Bill. I want to take this opportunity to put in a plea for another section of the community, namely, schoolchildren. I know it is not directly relevant to the Department of Finance but it is relevant to decimal currency. In this country as, indeed, in Britain we have debauched many generations of schoolchildren by the use of a ridiculous and antiquated system of money. We have convinced at least 100 years of schoolchildren, long after a better system was in widespread use elsewhere, that mathematics was something very difficult, except for the select few. This heresy was fostered because children were forced to multiply and divide, and generally fiddle about with sums in pounds, shillings and pence, in an extremely dull and boring way. I use this occasion now to beg not alone businessmen but also teachers and those responsible for education to ensure that this murder machine, grinding the minds of our children into pulp, is instantly halted and they are no longer required to carry out these ridiculous manipulations of antiquated currencies.

Dr. FitzGerald

I have nothing at all against the decimal system, but I have everything against this Bill and I should like now to speak personally against it. The Minister will be aware that, when it was proposed to introduce decimal currency in Britain, the proposal was successful only because the party whips were applied. That was the way in which the decimal currency legislation was pushed through against, I might say, the wishes of a very large proportion of the British public and against, possibly, the wishes of the majority in the British Parliament. The measure was pushed through because of some extraordinary mystical belief in the importance of preserving the position of sterling. The British heavy pound was to be preserved regardless of whether it was, in fact, a proper unit of currency for modern use.

The measure was pushed through in Britain for reasons which have nothing to do with us. We do not have any concern with the prestige of sterling. We are concerned with its strength, but the mystical aspects need not concern us so much and there was no need for us to follow the British in this respect. Unfortunately, we have fallen into the habit of following Britain, even when there are far better examples elsewhere. A recent illustration of this was the Standard Time Bill. The Minister came into the Seanad and had the effrontery to tell us there that every country in Europe was adopting the same time and we had to fall into line. I pointed out to the Minister that if he were as avid a reader of Cooke's continental timetable as I was he would know that Italy had introduced a different time, without in any way disrupting the European Economic Community or posing any impossible problems except, perhaps, for railway workers. The Minister did not know that and, not knowing it, he was telling us that we had to do the same as Britain. He did not seem to know either that this country, when it was an integral part of the United Kingdom, had its own time. Had he consulted the 1910 Bradshaw, recently reissued, he would have noticed the data given there with regard to the timetable relating to steamer services between Ireland and Britain.

Yet, now that we are an independent country, we must be identical with Britain in every respect. In fact, we had a separate currency with a separate value and, throughout the entire period of the Union, a different time. There is no reason why we should not have a different currency, if it suits us. The fact is that, throughout Europe, and fairly generally throughout the world, except in some ex-British colonies, which have not fully thrown off their British shackles, the unit of currency is something in the range of two to three and, in some cases, four shillings. There is good reason for this. The reason was borne in on me very forcefully last year when, on holiday in France, I had occasion to purchase various goods. When I went to buy a bottle of Perrier, being personally of abstemious taste——

Mr. Haughey

Imagine buying Perrier in France.

Dr. FitGerald

——I noticed the price ranged from 58 to 64 centimes. The price varied according to the shop and I noticed that French shoppers bought their Perrier in the 58 centimes shop and not in the 64 centimes shop. The appropriate unit which enables price competition to be maintained is the existing five. The Minister will tell us no doubt that the farthing has been an unworkable coin, has been rejected and has gone out of circulation. That is perfectly true. The farthing, of course, is not a unit; it is a vulgar fraction of a unit and not even that common vulgar fraction of one halfpenny, the half unit, but a quarter unit which is something people do not accept. The experience elsewhere is that, in order to get accurate pricing and in order to ensure value for money, differentiation in pricing of the order of one farthing in the purchasing power of money is required and that purchasing power unit should be a unit and not a fraction. That has been the experience throughout virtually all of Europe. There is no reason why we should differ in this respect. I refuse to believe that the Irish or the British are so careless in their shopping that they do not care if they spend four times the amount people in France and other countries spend when they are shopping. The Government had the matter put to them by, for example, the Federation of Irish Industries, which is not exactly a revolutionary body and, when it puts forward a view of this kind, you can be certain that a lot of thought has gone into it and that it is unlikely to disrupt the economy or lead to serious economic problems.

I have been informed, and perhaps I have been misinformed, that the view of the Federation was given considerable weight by the Government and it has even been said that the Government, or the Minister perhaps, before going to the Government, was persuaded of the validity of their view on the grounds I have put forward but that when it came to making a decision the intervention of the Irish Banks Standing Committee changed his mind. It has been said that they told the Minister that it was impossible and that nothing must break closeness of the link with sterling.

They went so far as to say that anything which involved putting in a decimal point into the £ when relating our £ with the British £ would complicate matters and foreign exchange control would be necessary for all our transactions with Britain. If, in fact, the committee made this statement I cannot help feeling that there is something wrong with the way they do business. If the Minister was so persuaded, it clearly goes to show that this Government are excessively under the influence of the bankers. When the weight of opinion here was clearly against the proposal to go along with Britain and when there was the advantage of having a unit of appropriate size for the purposes of commerce, trading and shopping, clearly the Government should not have been persuaded to adopt a proposal contrary to our interest merely because of the argument put forward by the banks.

This Bill is a mistake, not because it decimalises currency, which I accept— although I am not sure that the problem of vulgar fractions and points and so on are the main source of torture for our children and I could name others. Simplification does not merely mean following in every respect what Britain does and adopting their heavy £ is economically and socially disadvantageous. It will introduce into our system of commerce, trade and shopping a currency which is quite inappropriate and it means that the smallest unit will be the equivalent of 2.4d. today. The Government, recognising that this unit was too big and that the system was undesirable, have been forced to bastardise the decimal system by introducing the half unit. This, of course, destroys much of the full value of the decimal system because the halfpenny comes back in again. Having got rid of our vulgar fractions, which was the purpose of this exercise apparently, they are to be reintroduced because the unit the Government have chosen is the penny which is so large—2.4d—that even the Government can see that such a unit for shopping purposes is far too big, and even for ordinary purposes. It is going to introduce an inflation in prices and disrupt our economic system. They have been forced to damage the very system they are introducing by introducing a half unit. This half unit will be the equivalent of 1.2d today and to have that as a unit by which one differentiates one price from another, a unit which is five times as large as the similar units which exist in most European countries, is to introduce a completely unacceptable and undesirable system of currency.

It is true, of course, that at the rate at which money is losing its value due to the present Government, especially in the last two years when prices have risen by an average of five per cent per annum, and if that process continues— if the Government remain in power for such a length of time, which we think unlikely, and hope will not happen— the value of the penny will be so reduced that this unit will become the appropriate unit. I am prepared to believe that 25 years of Fianna Fáil rule will justify this Bill; but if we pass this Bill we should not have to advocate the passage of 25 years to justify it. Therefore, I am opposed to this Bill in its present form. It is a serious mistake. It is a pity it was not fully debated, and here I think the fault lies with the Opposition and with myself in that regard. The Opposition could have been more active in this regard. It is all right to blame the Government for things but the Opposition must be active. I must confess that I did not actively oppose this at the time when it was going through because it started in the Lower House and the damage was done before it reached the Upper House.

Another point is that the design of our coins has caused concern among everybody concerned with the aesthetics of our coins. One of the great things to the credit of the first Government was the way in which they handled this problem of coinage. The Minister did not simply take a design which was sent to him, decide that he liked it and show it to the Civil Service and say: "That is it." The Government of the day set up a committee of distinguished personnel, including W.B. Yeats, to look into the matter of designs from all parts of the world. They decided on a design which has been very appropriate to this agricultural country and which has been admired enormously.

Now we have introduced a different kind of design and every second coin will be different in character. It is a matter of opinion—and I am not in a position to give an opinion because I do not value my aesthetical opinion to that extent—whether it is a good or bad design; but I do not like it and I feel that combining two such different designs in a single series is going to damage the unity and the prestige of our coinage and the prestige of our country. I think it is deplorable and I would ask the Minister to reconsider his decision. He should either have our coinage designed from scratch in a single series, adopt the procedure adopted by the first Government, or see if it might be possible to design new coins in the idiom of the existing set of coins. The better thing might be to have a new set. It may be that the position has gone too far, that the Minister's ad hoc decision has now been processed to the point of no return and that he now has to stick with this mixed up coinage. Even if we have to have this for a period I would appeal to the Minister to set aside his own views, which may be of more value than mine, and to set up a similar system to that of the first Government to have a new design which will do credit to the country.

For many years we were unfortunate in our postage stamps. Their design may have seemed appropriate at the time it was introduced but it never seemed to me to be particularly pleasing aesthetically. Certainly it has been inappropriate for the last 30 or 40 years. However, we did have a good coinage. The Minister should reconsider this matter, if it has not gone too far, to ensure that we have a decent coinage. He should set up an appropriate committee with appropriate qualifications to recommend a design for a permanent coinage which would do us credit.

Mr. Tully

I would be inclined to agree with Deputy FitzGerald in regard to having two different coins. I, personally, think a mistake has been made by the Minister or his advisers in not following either one design or the other. After all, practically every country has its own distinctive design and we had such a design. We now seem to have changed it, for some extraordinary reason. I am not claiming to be an expert on this matter but I do feel that the changing of the design is a mistake. Therefore, the Minister, if he can now, should have another look at it.

Mr. Haughey

The designs have not been changed where they could be preserved.

Mr. Tully

The other thing is that they have been changed where it was possible for the Minister to change them.

Mr. Haughey

Where I had to change them.

Mr. Tully

The Minister had not got to change them.

Mr. Haughey

Of course, I had.

Mr. Tully

The Minister had not to change the design. He did not have to change from animals to something else, and that is what he did. Incidentally, may I comment, as I did on the last occasion, that I was very surprised that the Minister dropped the design of the horse. I thought he was the one Minister who would have retained the horse on the coinage. As it was the half dollar, it may have been difficult to have retained it but in a few years time it would have been accepted under a new value. I feel that a mistake has been made there.

It is wrong to suggest that this discussion now is the end of the decimal coinage discussion because this is only the Second Reading of the Bill and if we feel strongly enough about it there is no reason why we should not have many a long hour's discussion on the floor of this House in regard to the ultimate designs and the other matters affected by the Bill.

In passing, I should like to ask the Minister if he is aware that at present pennies, which are not very much used except for certain things, are disappearing completely and that some organisations find it almost impossible to get pennies, that no further pennies are being issued by the banks and there is likely to be a very grave shortage of pennies before the decimal coinage comes into operation. This will have the same effect as came about when the farthing and the halfpenny disappeared. When that happened the person selling something in a shop always got the advantage because he said he would arrange to make up whatever the odd coin was the next time and the next time never came. We are now reaching the stage where pennies will be treated in the same way. The Minister should do something about it because it will be a long time before the decimal currency will be in general distribution and if pennies disappear now very considerable upset will be caused. The Minister should take cognisance of the fact that pennies are becoming terribly scarce.

I quite agree with Deputy FitzGerald and the other people who referred to the value of the coin of lowest value in the new coinage because it might be very convenient for a Minister for Finance to be able to say that the least amount by which he can increase taxation is a half new penny, which is 1.2 of the present pence. Even the 0.2d, added up, will add considerably to the additional prices which we know will occur as a result of the budgets in years to come. Possibly, the 10/basis may not have been the correct one. Most certainly, the smallest half new penny, value 1.2d, is not very realistic. It simply means—and the Minister must accept this—an increase in the cost of living to those who buy in small quantities. Again and again in the House we have heard people who do not seem to accept the fact that there are still people who are able to pay only for half pounds of this and quarter pounds of that. Up to now such people have been able to save halfpennies and pennies which they find useful at the end of the week in balancing their budgets. Under the new system that will not be possible and, therefore, it does mean an increase in their cost of living. For that reason, if for no other, the Minister should make some effort to have a smaller value coin than the new halfpenny.

Most of the provisions in the Bill as published are matters which have to be dealt with and can be dealt with on Committee Stage but I do not think that the Minister is being realistic when he talks about the cost of the change-over from the present currency to decimal currency. I do not think he is realistic when he talks about the change-over as far as industry is concerned. I am quite sure he will find that the amount of money involved is much greater and that it will be difficult to get people to change until the change is forced on them. I do know that small firms, in particular, will think, not twice, but half a dozen times, before they spend money changing over until they have to do so.

I was listening the other day to a Minister talking about smokeless zones and about how quickly smokeless zones could be brought about and about what happened in other countries where millions of pounds were being spent in order to achieve this objective. I think the Minister has the same attitude of mind here. He is talking now of a change-over at the expense of the people who will be making the change and that, ultimately, is at the expense of the person who is trading with those people. The holding out of an income tax concession will not encourage anybody. This is a matter which will have to be dealt with in a much more serious way by the Minister for Finance than has been the case up to the present. The Minister seems to imagine that all he has to do is to have this Bill passed and to publish the fact that the decimal coinage is here or will be here within two years and that everyone will rush around to put their house in order. He must realise, if he stops to think, that that is not the case and that, in fact, it will be extremely difficult to get business in general in this country to accept that it was necessary to do it at all.

I quite agree that this is something which had to come about. There is no use in suggesting that we should stay here in isolation while everybody was changing over to decimal currency or using decimal currency. Deputy Keating was perfectly correct when he said that our children, particularly the smaller children, are having far more difficulty in mastering figures because of the fact that we have not used that system which is adopted elsewhere. At the same time, I honestly believe that there will have to be a very big effort made to sell the new system and a new effort will have to be made by everybody concerned. The Minister will probably tell me now that that big effort is being made, that we have been talking about it for quite some time. The suggestion which was introduced quite some time ago here and the copies of the coins issued to Deputies in the last Dáil are, to my mind, about all that has been done. If the timetable referred to here is to be achieved, the matter will have to be tackled in a far more determined manner.

Finally, let me again appeal to the Minister to have a look at the designs on the new coins and decide that a mixture of design is spoiling our series of coins. I repeat that the half new penny will mean extra cost for people who will have very small incomes and who, therefore, will be buying in small quantities.

Mr. Briscoe

I should like to say a few words on this subject. Listening to Deputy FitzGerald, it took some time to realise that one was listening to what sometimes could be described as the old Unionist Party talking.

Dr. FitzGerald

The old what talking?

Mr. Briscoe

The old Unionist Party.

Dr. FitzGerald

That is a new one, certainly.

Mr. Briscoe

This is not the subject I rose to speak about.

Mr. Donegan

It is the party which built the State when you were trying to knock it down; remember that.

Dr. FitzGerald

The party that took over from the Unionists.

Mr. Briscoe

Instead of denigrating the idea that we should tie our coinage to the same system as that which operates in Britain it might be well to remember that probably 75 per cent of our tourists come from Britain and that probably upwards of the same percentage, approximately, of our trade is conducted with Britain. Therefore, it seems only natural that we should try to keep our new coinage in line with what they are doing over there.

It is obvious that we have expressed our individuality in the new designs. Deputy FitzGerald does not particularly like the designs. He is entitled to his opinion. Personally, I like them very much. I think they are magnificent. I hope the majority of the people will agree with my view that they are nice designs. The best of all our other designs have been retained. The new 5d piece has the same design as that on the back of our present shilling and the salmon on our present 2/- piece will be on the new 10d piece. The woodcock on our farthing, which is going out of circulation, will appear on the new 50d piece, which is also of a very attractive shape. Our present pennies and halfpennies are very heavy. I notice the Minister has not made any mention of paper notes. I presume that the 10/- note and the £1 note will remain more or less the same.

Dr. FitzGerald

The 10/- note is being abolished.

Mr. Briscoe

I certainly think it would be a good idea to have a 10/note.

Dr. FitzGerald

Hear, hear.

Mr. Briscoe

I should be in favour of the Minister giving this his consideration. I do not know if any new designs are planned for the £1 note. Our present one is of quite a good design though it is a little large. I should like to see it reduced in size similar to that of the English £1 note or thereabouts.

Dr. FitzGerald

Even in that respect we must follow——

Mr. Haughey

Would Deputy FitzGerald please have a bit of manners and refrain from bringing bad Seanad habits into this House?

Mr. Briscoe

We have also had the benefit of the experience of Australia in bringing in new decimal coinage to guide and help us in conveying to the public how best to get used to the new coinage. I believe our public will very quickly learn the value of their new coins. I should like to congratulate the Minister if he had the final word in connection with these designs which are absolutely beautiful, most distinctive and very Irish. I believe we shall receive more compliments than insults about these designs.

Mr. Haughey

May I begin with the matter which Deputy Briscoe spoke about, and some other Deputies, too? I could, perhaps, recall to the House an incident that took place during the Renaissance in Italy. A famous painter executed a brilliant masterpiece and, seeking to have it acclaimed by the populace, put it on display in the public square and asked that any member of the public who disliked a particular feature of the painting would paint it with a black mark. The next day he discovered that the whole painting had been obliterated. Undaunted, however, he returned to the fray and painted the work again, put it on exhibition and asked the general public to put a black mark on any particular feature of the painting that particularly pleased them. To his satisfaction, he found the next day that, again, the whole painting had been completely blacked out. The point of the story, I think, is that it is very difficult to get unanimity from the public on anything in which individual taste is concerned.

I think Deputy FitzGerald picked a rather unhappy argument when he talked about the original coinage and the way that particular operation was carried out and how satisfactory it was. The person primarily responsible for the designs of the original coinage was Percy Metcalfe. I am very pleased to be able to tell Deputy FitzGerald that I have a letter from no less a personage than Percy Metcalfe acclaiming the beauty of our new designs and expressing his satisfaction and appreciation of them. As far as we possibly could, and for the purpose of continuity, we preserved every existing design. I am sure Deputies are not overlooking the fact that the obverse side of the new coins will be exactly the same as the obverse side of the old coins. Where we could, we kept—and it was possible to do so—the designs on the old coinage and carried them forward to the new coinage, as Deputy Briscoe pointed out. Only where we were forced by circumstances to adopt new designs did we do so. The exigencies of the situation required that we change the design on certain of the coins. Faced with that necessity, we chose what in our view were the best suggestions put to us. A committee established by the Central Bank examined the whole problem. I think a competition held by the Central Bank had not a very successful outcome. The situation is that these designs were recommended to me by the Central Bank for my approval. My role in the matter was confined to an enthusiastic acceptance of a recommendation put forward by the Central Bank.

Finally, in connection with designs, so anxious were we to preserve continuity and to hold on to as many of the old coinage designs as we could that, in the new ten shilling coin, we brought back the woodcock design from the outgoing farthing. We could do that because the farthing is going out of circulation. However, we could not do that with the horse design because it would be confused with the existing half-crown. Therefore, far from seeking to change for change's sake, we went to considerable lengths to try to hold on to as many of the original designs as we could.

I consider the designs of our original coins quite wonderful. Perhaps of their time they are the best in the world. Mind you, other countries now have come along with some very fine designs also. However, I want to point out that when these original designs were being introduced there was furious controversy about them and I understand that the country was practically evenly divided at the time for and against. We have received very little public reaction to the designs we are putting forward on this occasion and, indeed, in so far as we are getting public reaction, informed public reaction, it has been, to a considerable extent, favourable.

Somebody made the point about keeping the ten shilling note. This was also carefully considered but the arguments in favour of a 10/- coin are quite overwhelming. The decision again in this respect was taken after the most mature consideration and a great deal of consultation. The arguments for a 10/- coin instead of a 10/note are to my mind quite incontrovertible.

Dr. FitzGerald

Why can we not have both?

Mr. Haughey

The 10/- note is a very expensive operation. They wear out very quickly. One cannot put a 10/- note into a slot machine or into a coin machine. I do not see any point in having a 10/- note. If we must have one or the other, all the arguments are in favour of the coin.

Mr. P. Belton

In which machines can a 10/- coin be used?

Dr. FitzGerald

Cigarette machines after the next Budget, perhaps.

Mr. Haughey

All the new machines —cash registers and so on.

Mr. P. Belton

What machines require this at the moment?

Mr. Haughey

All the new machines will have it.

Mr. P. Belton

What article can be sold on these machines that costs 10/-?

Mr. Haughey

Ten shilling notes are used in cash registers and so on at the moment. You put a 10/- note into the cash register. In future you will put in a 10/- coin.

Mr. P. Belton

The Minister mentioned slot machines. What slot machines?

Mr. Haughey

Perhaps, they are not there at the moment but they will be and they are in other countries. Automatic vending machines are on the increase and will get more and more common and 10/- will be used in them and, indeed, they will give change of 10/-.

Deputy FitzGerald was, I think, the only one who questioned the £ new penny system ab initio as it were. I do not know about that. First of all, I want to say that we do not slavishly follow Britain for the sake of following Britain.

Dr. FitzGerald

It just happened.

Mr. Haughey

I think it would be equally weak-minded not to follow Britain if it suited our purpose just because it involved following Britain.

Dr. FitzGerald

Oh, hear, hear.

Mr. Haughey

There is no particular advantage in doing something just for the sake of being different. I published a booklet in June, 1967, on this whole question of the new system and I invited views from the general public. We got a very good response to that booklet. The overwhelming response was in favour of the £ new penny, new halfpenny system. From recollection I think Deputy FitzGerald is probably right when he says that the FII opted for a different system but I think they were alone in opting for that system. Whatever advantage there might be in opting for a system that the Cana-dians, Australians, New Zealanders or South Africans have opted for, that is the 10/- system, I could not see any merit at all in the florin system. It does not seem to me to have any advantages. It seems to have many disadvantages.

No matter what system we adopted it would have disadvantages and we finally selected, after weighing all the views put before us, what in our view was the system that had most advantages and least disadvantages and the fact that that involved doing the same as Britain did was, as far as we are concerned, totally coincidental but undoubtedly one of the factors that weighed with us was the convenience, for many purposes, of having the same system as will operate in Britain and in the Six Counties.

Dr. FitzGerald

If it weighed how was it merely coincidental?

Mr. Haughey

That is the sort of little smart alecky trick I am not concerned even to answer. I am trying to explain how we came to the decision to do this and the decision was dic-tated to us by the overwhelming public reaction in favour of this new system.

Dr. FitzGerald

A qeer kind of coincidence.

Mr. Haughey

Any sensible person must realise that there are very considerable advantages in having the same system as obtains in Britain. Some people undoubtedly might have preferred if Britain had opted for a different system. Perhaps, many people would have preferred if Britain had opted for the 10/- system. Perhaps, if they had done that we might have taken a different decision, but I want to make the point that in all these matters we try to decide what is in the best interests of this country and of the Irish people and we follow that course. At the present time we are pursuing financial and economic policies which are totally different from those being pursued in Britain and it is just a silly and foolish kind of criticism to try to suggest that for some reason of weak-ness or weak-mindedness we slavishly follow Britain for the sake of following Britain. The simple truth of the matter is we do not.

Deputy Tully seemed to think that we were not being active enough in getting the public and getting the business community alerted to the necessity to prepare for the change-over. We have been doing a great deal in my opinion. The Irish Decimal Currency Board have been very active and receiving a great deal of co-operation from business organisations. I feel that at this stage the preparations are pro-ceeding as satisfactorily as we would expect them to. One must proceed in this business of the change-over along a carefully defined path. The programme must be very carefully plotted and things must be done in sequence. The right time to really alert the general public to the impending change-over is undoubtedly the autumn of 1970. Between now and then various steps should be taken at particular times and these steps, so far, have been taken so far as they were necessary. We will continue to take them between now and the change-over date. One could make the mistake of doing some things too soon and I feel that the Decimal Currency Board have mapped out a very sensible programme and are pro-ceeding at a satisfactory pace.

I am not aware that there were any other points made during the course of the debate——

Mr. Tully

Would the Minister like to comment on the shortage of pennies at present?

Mr. Haughey

Yes. There is, I understand, a temporary shortage of pennies, despite the fact that there is actually £400,000 worth of pennies in circulation. The Central Bank regard this shortage as temporary. It is due to a sudden upsurge in demand, the kind of thing that happens from time to time, but they expect, within a very short space of time, to be able to make adequate supplies of pennies available.

Mr. Tully

They have not decided not to issue any more pennies?

Mr. Haughey

They need not neces-sarily mint any new pennies but they are issuing supplies.

Mr. Tully

They are not doing it at the present time.

Mr. Haughey

Not at the moment but they are starting to do so now. There is quite a volume of pennies in circulation at present, £400,000 worth. Naturally, one aspect of this matter which is of vital concern to Deputies and the general public is the question of prices. There is no reason at all why he change-over should adversely affect price levels in any way. I suppose, inevitably, there will be some rounding up of prices but there should also be rounding down. Experience in other countries and, notably, in two countries which we have studied very carefully and in which we have many contacts, New Zealand and Australia, has been, on the whole, very satisfactory.

There is always the factor of competition and the general public must and will be alerted to the necessity of being on guard against any excessive increase in prices. We feel that by planning properly and intelligently, and with the requisite amount of publicity, we can carry through the operation without the general public suffering in any way by manipulation of prices by anybody. In addition to the factors I have mentioned of competition and public awareness, we shall have in reserve statutory powers to deal with any attempt to exploit the situation.

Mr. Tully

That would be done in the same way as in the case of the Prices Board—put up on the shelf with six inches of dust on it.

Mr. Haughey

What I have said I have said. There will be statutory powers in reserve to deal with any attempted exploitation of the general public but, personally, I believe the two most important factors in the situation are public opinion and awareness and competition. As Deputy Tully has said, we can come to the various details and have further discussion on them on the Committee Stage.

I have dealt with most of the points raised by Deputies in the debate, but I should like to say again that the designs were selected by the Central Bank, approved by me, in the hope that they would find general acceptance aesthetically. I should, perhaps, have mentioned one factor in regard to the designs which Deputies have not ad-verted to. Some Deputies criticised the idea of a mixed coinage. The coinage will be in two separate parts, as it were. There will be the cupro-nickel coins and the bronze coins. Both of these, regarded as entities, have complete integrity. In other words, the designs on each of the three coins in the two separate categories are the same. In regard to the cupro-nickel coins Deputies will note that by bringing back the woodcock in that category we have the animal, the fish and the bird. Looked at as a group it has integrity of design. The bronze coins can be looked at as a group and they also have integrity or continuity of design. At the same time we have preserved intact the obverse designs from the original coins that we had. On the whole, I think we have made good, wise, sensible, practical decisions in this matter and that we have taken the right aesthetic decisions also.

Mr. Briscoe

May I ask the Minister if any thought has been given to reducing the size of the present pound while we are undergoing this change?

Mr. Haughey

In that connection it is important to try to keep the number of changes to the minimum. This whole operation imposes considerable strain on the general public, particularly on older people. We should have as few upsets or changes as possible for the present. Until the operation is well and truly and successfully carried out we would not consider changing the design of the pound.

Mr. Keating

It seems to me that the most serious single criticism made of the whole scheme was the largeness of the smallest unit. This seems a very real and valid criticism. May I ask if the decision of the Government is absolutely final on this large size for the smallest unit because it does have a serious effect on price competition and, therefore, on value?

Mr. Haughey

That decision is final and irrevocable. I admit, as I said when speaking earlier, that no matter what course of action we took it had a mixture of advantages and disadvantages. I admit that the new halfpenny is perhaps bigger than we would wish. That is perhaps one of the disadvantages of that system and we had to take it along with the advantages.

Mr. Tully

The Government did not have to take it. What about the one-tenth of a penny?

Dr. FitzGerald

I should like to hear what the advantages are, apart from being the same as Britain.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may put a question but we cannot have further debate.

Dr. FitzGerald

I shold like the Minister to deal with the advantages.

Mr. Haughey

Read the booklet which was issued in June, 1967, in which all the advantages and disadvantages are clearly set out.

Dr. FitzGerald

It is because I read the booklet that I am asking the question.

Question put and declared carried.

Mr. Haughey

I suppose there is no question of getting all stages now?

Mr. O'Higgins

No. I suppose there is no undue urgency about it?

Mr. Haughey

There is. It must be passed before the recess.

Mr. O'Higgins

The next Stage can be ordered for this day week.

Committee Stage ordered for Wed-nesday, 16th July, 1969.