A persistent theme running through the Opposition speeches in this debate has been that workers are being discriminated against. This trend has been heightened and made even more inaccurate by repeated and misleading references to freezing wages and salaries. To call the proposals I announced on 16th October last for 6 per cent or a 36s. ceiling a freeze or standstill of wages is a complete abuse of language. Certainly, taken solely on economic grounds, it would have been a fair criticism to say the proposals went too far in permitting increases. The Bill itself allows more than was contemplated in my announcement of 16th October last. So far from discriminating against workers, the Government introduced this Bill because they believe that, in the interests of workers generally and particularly in the interests of the poorer and weaker sections of our society, the frightening rate of price increases we have been experiencing in recent times should be brought down significantly.
Experience has shown that if wages and salaries — which are the major elements in cost — increase at a rate which is greatly in excess of the rate of increase in output then price rises are inevitable. The effect which the spread of the maintenance strike settlement through the economy had on prices is there for all to see. One direct consequence of that inflation was — because of the fact that the Government is the major employer in the country — the necessity for substantially increased taxation.
There is a fundamental point here which has conveniently been glossed over by speakers from both Opposition parties and that is that, where you have incomes rising at a substantially faster rate than the rise in national productivity, inevitably you have price rises and no system of price control can avoid this. This is the fundamental question with which we are faced. To pretend that one can keep down prices without keeping down wages in some relation to increases in national productivity is either gross ignorance or a deliberate attempt to mislead our people. The Government had no choice in this matter but to intervene in the interest of everyone — wage and salary earners no less than others.
It is true that expectations have risen very high at present but it is also true, as I said in opening the debate, that many people now realise the futility of increases in money incomes of the kind we have been having in recent years which inevitably send the cost of living soaring. The trouble is that they fear that, in the absence of general restraint, moderation on their part will simply lose them their place in the queue to more selfish groups. This fear is itself an obstacle to fighting inflation. Under this Bill, however, it will be possible to go a long way towards ensuring that those who do exercise restraint will not find themselves losing out as a result.
I referred last night to some aspects of Deputy Keating's contribution to this debate. I want to make another reference or two to some of the things he said. One point he made, with which I thoroughly agree, is that the psychological climate is extremely important in dealing with the whole problem of inflation. I agree with him absolutely on that. I would point out that one advance we can claim to have made, already even before the passing of this Bill, is that we have substantially affected that psychological climate.
It is also important to realise that to make acceptable the kind of widespread control which is introduced in this Bill, right across the board, extending very widely in regard to prices for goods and services and professional fees, there has to be a suitable psychological climate. Many of the efforts we have been making so far have been directed towards ensuring that there is the psychological climate which makes this kind of control acceptable and possible.
I should also like to refer briefly to a point I touched on last night because I think it is of considerable interest, and that it will be of considerable interest to many people, that is, that both Deputy Keating and Deputy Dr. O'Connell in the course of their speeches said that, given certain circumstances, it was not contrary to the policy of the Labour Party but, on the contrary, was in accordance with the policy of the Labour Party, to have control over wages. It is very important that people should realise this because many of the Labour Party speakers——
