Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 1 May 1979

Vol. 313 No. 11

Private Members' Business. - Control of Prices: Motion.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann aware of the promises of the Government contained in pages 10 and 11 of the Fianna Fáil Manifesto relating to prices to:

(i) restructure the National Prices Commission;

(ii) discourage increased costs and prices in all areas where it has control and influence;

(iii) investigate middle men's margins;

(iv) fully disseminate, at least once a week, to radio, television and newspapers comparative prices of supermarket consumer goods;

(v) abolish the seven day rule arising out of the outer UK zone in respect of fuel price increases;

(vi) investigate why Northern Ireland prices are less—apart from tax reasons—than prices in the Republic for the identical product from the same supplier and the same factory, for example motor cars, parts, tyres, detergents, processed foods, biscuits, clothing, and

(vii) examine the accounting procedures of the ESB with a view to reducing the price of electricity—

Notes the continued failure of the Government to take decisive action in these areas after almost two years in office;

further notes the recent sharp increase in food, housing, fuel and other commodity prices sanctioned by the Government and condemns this abject failure of the Government to implement its election promises on prices.

The purpose of this motion and debate is to bring to the attention of the public that quite a number of the soft options in regard to prices and inflation, which were rather glibly handed out by this Government prior to the last election, have not in reality been achieved. I have no illusions whatsoever about the very considerable difficulty which has faced every Government of this country in their efforts to moderate, not to mention control, price increases. I am acutely aware, as is every responsible Deputy, that very often one man's wage increase can result in another man's price rise. Notwithstanding these factors, we must examine carefully the assurances given by the Fianna Fáil Party prior to the last general election that they would exert a major influence on the price situation, particularly in relation to food products. I am quite certain that the conclusion this House should come to, which undoubtedly has been reached by people outside, is that the Government have not been particularly successful in this regard.

During the election campaign Fianna Fáil canvassers went from door to door with the famous gospel—not the manifesto, which was rather large for digestion—in the form of a handbook called the "Fianna Fáil Canvasser's Guide for 1977". It is rather interesting to quote the section on prices and a couple of questions in that guide. It is stated that the following are some of the typical questions which the electorate would ask:

Isn't it just wishful thinking that Fianna Fáil can keep inflation at bay in the world situation?

No. Much of our inflation has been caused by the government's own action, i.e., a quarter of last year's price increases was directly inflicted by the Coalition in the 1976 budget and this was apart from increases in transport fares, phone charges and other increases inflicted after the budget.

Another question is as follows:

Will Fianna Fáil put VAT back on food?

No. On the contrary, Fianna Fáil is in favour of food subsidies which reduce the price of every-day foods and we pressed the Coalition to introduce them for the best part of a year before they finally did so.

So goes on the famous canvasser's guide which was trotted out on every doorstep. Inflation would, in effect, be controlled rigorously by the Fianna Fáil Party. On the assumption that we have elections about every four years, we are now half way through the term of office of Fianna Fáil and there is massive dissatisfaction with and genuine concern at consumer level about the major increases in food prices in recent months.

My colleague, Deputy Horgan, put down a question on 21 March relative to food price increases and the answer given was that between mid-May 1977 and mid-February 1979 the increase in the cost of food items in the CPI was no less than 23.3 per cent, as against an overall increase in the CPI of 15.6 per cent. I do not deny that prices increased by about 22 per cent when we were in office in the midst of a world economic recession when the price of oil was rocketing every month. Now, in a period of relative calm on the European scene in terms of inflation, Fianna Fáil can still record an increase in the food price index of no less than 23.3 per cent. As every housewife knows, between mid-May 1977 and mid-February 1979 there was a 30 per cent increase in the retail price of bread. This is quite phenomenal. In the midst of a most appalling world situation, the Coalition did not manage to increase the price of bread by 30 per cent. In the period mid-May 1977 to mid-February 1979 butter increased by no less than 29.1 per cent and the retail price of milk increased by a staggering 43.7 per cent during the period of the present Administration.

We all know that about 60 per cent of inflation is imported. There is a limit to which any Administration can control inflation but I do not recall increases of that magnitude hitting the housewife. These increased prices have caused consumer aggravation and anger against the Government.

In reply to a question I put down for today I learned that, since mid-May 1977, the average price of beef increased by 25p per lb. and the price of potatoes increased by no less than 30p per stone. Politicians take a fairly jaundiced view of the propaganda of others but any politician who believes his own propaganda is rather foolish. I remember the thousands of circulars which were distributed in Dún Laoghaire describing the Coalition Government's shopping basket and alleging horrific increases in prices, the implication being that the Fianna Fáil Party would get to grips with that problem. Notwithstanding the fact that Fianna Fáil returned to office in a period of economic and social growth after the recession in the economy, they failed to come to grips with some of the major increases in commodity prices.

One thing which affects families most is the price of foods. I learned today that, since mid-May 1977, under this Administration the price of bread went up by 7p a loaf, the price of cheese went up by 7.4p per lb., the price of sugar went up by 7½p per kilo and, as we all know, the price of butter went up by 8p a lb. Under the Coalition Government the price of potatoes went up by 37p in four years. It increased by 30p under Fianna Fáil in two years. Leaving aside the impact of the recession, the Fianna Fáil Party cannot be particularly proud of their record.

We made a genuine effort to restructure the National Prices Commission. All the paragraphs in the motion are direct quotations from the Fianna Fáil manifesto. The previous Government opened seven price line centres to receive complaints and inquiries. When we took office in 1973 there were only nine inspectors of consumer prices. When we left office there were close on 50. We made a major effort in that regard. The Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy said that without question he would restructure the National Prices Commission. He was not very specific about it.

On 31 January 1979 Deputy Horgan asked the Minister what steps he had taken to implement his policy of restructuring the National Prices Commission. He replied:

Following my review of the structure of the National Prices Commission, I decided, with a view to enhancing its capacity to discharge its statutory functions, to appoint Mr. Patrick M. Lyons, who is a member of the Restrictive Practices Commission to act as an additional member on the prices commission.

There is the restructuring. I have a high regard for Paddy Lyons. He is an excellent member of the prices commission. Undoubtedly he was very effective on the Restrictive Practices Commission as well. It is fair to say that he is a wellknown supporter of this Administration, not necessarily an uncritical supporter but a supporter of the Fianna Fáil Party on balance. One reads his column in The Irish Press and The Sunday Press.

It is unwarranted to talk in this House about any person's political affiliations.

I am talking in the most laudatory terms. The Minister said he was enhancing the capacity of the commission to discharge their statutory functions.

We should forget about the politics of people outside the House.

The Minister added one new member to the commission and then suggested: "I have now restructured it. I have revised their terms of reference. I have given them a new brief. I have put teeth into the NPC. I have expanded the scope of their operations. I have provided them with a whole host of additional staff." That is what I would regard as restructuring an organisation. The National Prices Commission is an excellent body doing immeasurably good work. I have the greatest regard for the staff. I worked with them before I became a Member of this House. To suggest that adding one new member to the National Prices Commission can be called restructuring it is an exaggerated use of the English language. By no stretch of the imagination can that promise in the Fianna Fáil manifesto be regarded as being fulfilled.

We had massive assurances from Fianna Fáil that they would investigate middle-men's margins, whatever that means. Every week we have complaints about the middle-men on the roadsides who "con" people out of their money. Nothing much is being done about roadside trading, apart from a promise of legislation later in the year. We have middle-men in the tourist industry who charge people 55p for a pint of Guinness, and 60p if they can get away with it. In some establishments they charge 65p for a pint of Guinness. This happens in hotels which cater for tourists. They get away with it and they damage the tourist trade in the process. No great effort is being made in that regard.

We have middle-men in the motor insurance industry. Under this Administration the cost of motor insurance has doubled for many motorists. Despite very strong protests, no effort has been made to come to grips with that so-called service to the motorists. In recent years the Opposition made every effort to convince the Government that there should be a State system of motor insurance under a State body similar to the VHI. That was rejected and, in the meantime, people have to pay ever higher prices for motor insurance.

There is a promise in the manifesto that Fianna Fáil would fully disseminate, at least once a week, to radio, television and newspapers comparative prices of supermarket consumer goods.

Apart from some effort once a week or thereabouts on a radio programme to convey some basic information to audiences the dissemination has been paltry. The previous Minister was belted around the head in this House when prices, sanctioned by the NPC, approved by the Minister, and which the Minister stood over were published in the newspapers. In recent months quite a few increases have been brought in either immediately after the Christmas dinner, when food subsidies were abolished, or immediately prior to the Minister disappearing to sell milk in China. We have had, in relation to price increases, the promise of dissemination of a wide ranging degree of information on supermarket consumer goods and their comparative prices. That has certainly not been implemented by the Government. This is another part of the manifesto which the Government would wish to bury quietly.

In another part of the motion we see the current confusion—and that is about the most polite term one could use—in relation to the proposal to abolish the seven-day rule arising out of the outer UK zone in respect of fuel prices. The Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy has gyrated around every oil depot in this country, on the one hand trying to get the benefits of the seven day rule and on the other hand trying to convince the oil companies that they should not get any benefit for that themselves. The Minister, in Opposition, waxed eloquent about his determination to abolish the seven day rule, but he has not done so. His performance this afternoon was pathetic. He seems to have had a love-hate relationship with the oil companies and this afternoon had a reassuring form of affection. He was very mute about it, even when we pointed out that he was condoning an increase of no less than 60 per cent in domestic fuel oil in relation to one company, namely the Burmah Oil Company. That company were mentioned in this House and that is why I am mentioning their name.

Where does the Minister stand in relation to the UK outer zone? Is he for it, or is he against it? Does he intend to abolish it, or does he intend to abide by it? It would be an interesting exercise to have the Minister elaborate on what exactly he intends to do on that particular issue.

Having had tantrums in front of the oil company executives and walked out on them, gone back after the Taoiseach had phoned the companies and got them to deliver another tanker-load of oil, and then realising that that kind of conduct does not impress anybody, the Minister now has a polite affection towards the oil companies. This is no consolation for the fact that the Minister is about to become the Minister responsible for petrol at £1 a gallon. Indeed, in relation to domestic heating fuel, the Minister seems to cast a blind eye on one company, at least, who are demanding no less than 60 per cent of an increase in relation to continuing their contract with domestic customers. That particular company have several thousand customers.

The Minister promised massive investigations into why Northern Ireland prices are less, apart from tax reasons, than prices in the Republic for identical products. Indeed, the Fianna Fáil manifesto was quite explicit. It mentioned motor cars; it mentioned parts and tyres; it even mentioned processed food and detergents. It went on to have a go at biscuits and at clothing. There has been a remarkable silence for two years on the part of the Government in relation to the outcome of those investigations, if they ever took place. We have not got much information at all. There was implicit in that manifesto a promise. "Probably after we have finished our examination you will have a cheaper motor car. You will probably have cheaper clothing relative to the situation in Northern Ireland. We can assure you that we will rigorously investigate the situation". The paucity of information from the Government in relation to these items certainly speaks for itself.

Then we come to the notorious examination promised in relation to the accounting procedures of the ESB with a view to reducing the price of electricity, no less. My colleague here, Deputy Horgan, asked several questions of the Minister and got a bland reply that the matter was under examination on the part of the Government and, in due course, the working party would report and we would have no problem, presumably when the matter came before the Minister. It would be interesting to know precisely the outcome of that examination in terms of a report to this House and the effect it actually had on the reduction, if any in the price of electricity. These are the items which have been promised to the Members of this House, in terms of a reduction.

The one item that I would pick out would be the question of food price increases. The Government had ample warning, long before they took their final decision to abolish food subsidies, in regard to the substantial increases in food prices. For example, between mid-August 1977 and mid-November 1978 the price of beef had gone up, in that period alone, by 19 per cent; mutton and lamb had gone up by 28 per cent. The price of tomatoes had gone up by 116 per cent. The price of bread, even at that stage, had gone up by 16 per cent; flour by 16 per cent; biscuits by 13 per cent; fresh milk by 12½ per cent and cheese by no less than 25 per cent because of the withdrawal of the subsidy. Notwithstanding these increases which occurred between mid-August 1977 and mid-November 1978 what did the Government do? They decided to abolish the food subsidies, to jack up the cost of food to the less advantaged in this country. It caused a great deal of public unrest and cynicism about the good intentions of the Government and, of course, has resulted in quite substantial manifest public unrest. A good deal of dissatisfaction with this Government evolves around their decision in relation to food subsidies. The situation here is directly related to the cost of living and the CPI, and there has been no assurance on the part of the Government that in eight months time we shall not see the further two phases of reduction in food subsidies. All the indications are so far that they still are hell-bent on going ahead and having another reduction next January and a further reduction the January after.

We have the Government amendment. It is ludicrous that the Government amendment proposes to delete quotations from their own manifesto which are in our motion. It is a rather ironic situation. The Fianna Fáil Party are now deleting a section of their own manifesto in the terms of the motion. Obviously there are bits of the manifesto that they would prefer to forget. They would want to bury them with all possible speed and so they have done a bit of expurgation from the record itself. It seems that the Fianna Fáil Party are now voting against important sections of their own manifesto. That is a very odd situation. It is a very odd measure of progress in the past two years. The Government do not have the confidence of this House in relation to monitoring, control and exerting a decisive influence over the level of consumer prices in this country.

If I may tease gently the Minister of State, I recall reading with some incredulity about an interview which the good Minister had with Michael Finlan as reported in The Irish Times away back in the first flush of the majority of 20. The Minister was asked about the price situation in relation to oil. I quote from The Irish Times of 12 July 1977:

When you ask what will happen if prices start to rise again, she shudders and then laughs. "What do you mean?" she asks. "Haven't we already reduced the price of petrol and on top of that haven't we discovered oil off the coast of Galway? What more do you want?"

I am afraid that all our quotations —and I have had a few in my time—in the first flush of enthusiasm of a new Government have a habit of catching up with us. The oil off the coast of Galway has yet to appear. It comes from Whiddy——

Has it yet to appear? Does the Deputy happen to live or work in that area?

It has not appeared yet.

We will see. We will make the Deputy eat his words.

We would dearly wish to see it. Pending that, the Government have a good deal to answer for in relation to the prices situation.

One final factor I will refer to is the spate of industrial disputes which are undoubtedly adding substantially to the cost situation in industry. Companies have to depend on the rickety telephone system which we have at present and their costs are escalating day by day. This serious situation has to be taken into account by the Government in bringing about a settlement in a number of disputes. Whether it is tourism or manufacturing that is in question they are depending on telex, on telephones and on getting messages through for basic materials and depending above all on the shaky cash flow situation which is affecting many companies. This is going to be a price-cost factor in the years ahead which will escalate further the level of general inflation.

The Government have been sitting back, not taking much action in relation just = "right" li = "1" ri = "3">Cr.to the NPC. We have the spectacle of the Minister for Economic Planning and Development coming in here and saying that all is well, not to worry, the last quarter of 1979 will show inflation working out at about 5 per cent. We are a four-year Government, not a quarterly Government and all the implications at this stage are that inflation is back into double figures and the Government have not exerted themselves particularly in relation to the control of basic food commodities particularly in relation to food subsidies. The absence of this control and of any real effort to the part of the Government to exert an influence has been manifestly evident and has resulted in substantial consumer dissatisfaction which will undoubtedly manifest itself in the elections to come and which at least at the minimum proves that the rather glib, high-handed and sweeping promises made by the Government at the last election have proved impossible to fulfil and self-defeating in terms of exerting control on inflation in recent years.

I have moved the motion in the name of my colleagues and my fellow Deputies here. I see no merit whatever in the amendment put down by the Government. It must have exerted a great deal of imagination to dream that up. It would have been better just to vote against our motion because the amendment is contradictory and of no great benefit to this debate. The exposure of the promises contained in the Fianna Fáil manifesto has been overdue and we said so at the time of the election. Whether it is the price of houses or of agricultural land that is in question, no effort has been made on the part of the Government to exert any real influence. In relation to the other items I have mentioned, their manifest failure has also been singularly evident in recent years.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:—

"notes with satisfaction the decline in the rate of inflation in the past two years and approves of the measures being taken by the Government to control prices".

I am glad of the opportunity presented by this motion to highlight the significant achievements of this Government in fulfilling their pre-election commitments to effective price control and to ensure that only the minimum price increases are passed on to the consumer.

A little over 12 months ago this House debated a somewhat similar motion on prices. Deputy O'Toole moved the motion on that occasion and referred to the statements made by Fianna Fáil prior to the general election. Deputy O'Toole said that Fianna Fáil had a perfect right to make these statements but that they had not the right to say that something was being done when it was not being done. The Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy and I told the House what had been done, what was being done and what would be done in the future. I will list for the House the decisive actions the Government took over the last two years in all the areas mentioned in the motion under discussion.

Deputy Desmond, who moved the motion tonight, intervened in the debate last year to accuse the Minister and all of his colleagues of not having a thought in their heads as to what revised guidelines should operate for the National Prices Commission. Even Deputy Desmond should be able to deduce that, not only had the Minister and his colleagues worth-while thoughts, but that they have consistently proved that they have the ability and concern to translate those thoughts into effective and decisive action.

The Government's commitment was and is for effective price control. Shortly after taking up office the Minister had his first meeting with the National Prices Commission to discuss the restructuring of the commission together with detailed proposals for a more rigorous examination of price applications. A number of meetings were held over the last two years and meetings continue to be held at appropriate intervals. As a result of this continuous review changes were introduced in line with the Government's pre-election manifesto.

Following a review of the structure of the National Prices Commission the Minister appointed an additional member to the commission. Deputy Desmond's remarks about that additional member, implying that the member was a Fianna Fáil Party hack, are extremely regrettable coming from a Member of this House. The commission undertake a very substantial volume of work. The reports they present to the Minister each month are a testament to the excellent work they carry out on the many aspects of price control and economic trends. By altering their structure the Minister enhanced their capacity to discharge their statutory functions.

One of the primary concerns of the Minister on taking up office was to review existing methods of price control. The results of the Minister's meetings with the National Prices Commission were that a number of changes were made in the criteria for reviewing price applications. There is now a more rigorous examination of price proposals. The changes introduced have increased the Minister's control and influence in the prices area.

The Minister extended the period of notification of proposed price increases from two to three months in the case of major firms to enable price proposals from these firms to be fully examined. The Minister also requires such firms to report each year on efficiency and productivity improvements. The requirement for export exemption from price control was raised from 25 to 35 per cent of total volume so as to encourage firms to greater efforts to increase their exports. The Minister directed the National Prices Commission to pay particular attention to the import costs of the Irish subsidiaries of multinational companies. The Minister thought this to be extremely important to prevent the parents of such companies charging excessive prices for supplies in order to benefit the holding company abroad and in this way evade price control regulations. The commission are currently completing a report of a study of the effect of such transfer pricing on price levels here. The Minister also asked the commission to intensify their examination of the effects of currency fluctuations on companies' imported raw material costs and to keep under continuous review world market prices for world materials and commodities.

In the pre-election manifesto Fianna Fáil promised to investigate the middlemen's margins in areas where there was an inordinate difference in the prices obtained by the producer and the price paid by the housewife for the same products—for example, meat, fish, poultry, fruit and vegetables. The Minister asked the National Prices Commission to undertake these investigations and these have now been completed. Studies of margins on meat, poultry, fruit, vegetables and fish were carried out.

As far as meat was concerned, the commission concluded, in their December 1977 report, that despite increases in gross cash margins on beef and lamb in Dublin there was no evidence of excess profits in the trade. The commission have continued to monitor gross cash margins on meat throughout the country to ensure that margins do not increase unreasonably.

The commission engaged consultants to study poultry margins. The conclusion was that there was scope for more competition in poultry sales between supermarket outlets. As a result of their surveys the commission discovered what they regarded to be an unjustifiably large increase in the gross margins on chickens between January 1978 and December 1978. A maximum prices order for chickens was immediately made by the Minister to reduce chicken prices significantly. The order came into operation on 5 February of this year.

A study of middlemen's margins on fish revealed that there was no evidence of excessive profits on the part of wholesalers, processors or retailers.

The study of middlemen's margins in relation to fruit and vegetables concluded that margins were not excessive except possibly in supermarkets. Formal control of fruit and vegetable margins by maximum prices order would create serious administrative difficulties; it would be virtually impossible to relate a controlled price to a clearly defined quality of produce and this would render an order ineffective. The best way to reduce margins is through improved efficiency and increased competition. To this end the commission are continuing to monitor fruit and vegetable prices on a weekly basis and the results are broadcast by RTE and published in the daily papers.

Arrangements were made in November 1977 for RTE radio to begin broadcasting fruit, vegetable and poultry prices on a weekly basis. The information is broadcast in the course of a consumer li = "2" fli = "-1">Cr.affairs programme every Friday morning. The information, supplied by the prices inspectorate, is given in the form of advice to the consumer as to where the best value is available. Information on meat prices is also broadcast on a monthly basis.

Since 1 December 1978, the fruit and vegetable prices are also being presented each Friday evening on RTE 2 television.

In addition, since January 1979, the same information has been sent to the four national daily newspapers for publication in their Friday editions.

While I am on the subject of consumer information, I would like, once again, to encourage all consumers to bring complaints of overcharging or seemingly excessive prices to the notice of my Department so that they can be investigated. Complaints can be brought to the Minister's attention, to the attention of the Department or to the attention of the Priceline Offices located in various centres throughout the country. During the year ended 31 December 1978 the prices inspectorate investigated 4,292 complaints, of which 3,998 were received at the Priceline centres. They found that 2,452 or 57 per cent were well founded. Evidence of the contravention of price control orders for legal proceedings was obtained in 1,963 instances. There were 558 breaches of price charge display orders and as a result of the work of the inspectorate refunds were made in 1,489 cases. During the year 1,056 traders were fined a total of £8,317 and were ordered to pay £1,860 expenses for breaches of orders made under the Prices Acts. From 1 January 1973, to 31 December 1978, there were 6,029 prosecutions of which more than 98 per cent were successful.

In regard to the seven-day UK Outer Zone arrangement for the control of petroleum product prices, this was introduced in December 1973 when there were severe oil supply problems. When the Minister assumed responsibility for price control in 1977, he decided to retain the link with the UK Outer Zone for the time being simply because it suited us to retain it. This was borne out in July 1977 when the oil companies in Britain reduced their wholesale prices and, in accordance with the arrangement, the Minister was able to require the Irish oil companies to reduce their prices by similar amounts.

Further reductions in the Irish companies' prices were made in late January-early February 1978 and again in November 1978. The January-February 1978 reductions were made on a voluntary basis by the companies themselves because of the appreciation in the exchange rate of sterling against the dollar. These reductions broke the direct link between wholesale prices in Ireland and those in the UK Outer Zone as Irish wholesale prices for the particular petroleum products involved became lower than the UK Outer Zone prices. The pound continued to improve in value against the dollar and the ri = "2">NilMinister approached the Irish oil companies in September 1978 to make further reductions in their prices. However, the companies were not prepared to make these further reductions voluntarily and the Minister then made the Maximum Prices (Petroleum Products) Order, 1978, which fixed maximum wholesale prices for the various petroleum products as well as maximum retail prices for petrol and domestic kerosene. The prices fixed under the order were ½p per gallon lower than the prices which the companies had been charging. This reduction, of course, increased the differential between wholesale prices in Ireland and those in the UK Outer Zone.

The prices of petroleum products have been increased twice in recent months. On 14 March 1979 the Irish oil companies were allowed to implement price increases which were similar to increases already implemented in the UK and were designed to compensate the companies for the increased cost of crude oil and for other cost increases. The second increase came into effect on 23 April 1979 but the amounts allowed were not on that occasion identical to increases which had recently been implemented in the UK and this in fact changed further the differential between Irish wholesale prices and those in the UK. It is quite clear, therefore, that the direct link between wholesale prices in Ireland and those in the UK Outer Zone has not been operating for the past 15 months.

Let me turn to a further point raised in the Labour Party motion—the question of Northern Ireland prices vis-à-vis prices here for similar products. The Minister asked the NPC to investigate fully why, apart from tax reasons, Northern Ireland prices are sometimes lower than prices here. A number of investigations were, in fact, carried out with particular reference to motor cars, spare parts, tyres, detergents, biscuits and frozen foods. Individual factors were discovered in each case. There were some broad reasons, namely, for products made here, higher unit domestic costs of production due to the smaller market in the Republic; higher transport and distribution costs here due to various reasons, including lower density of population and greater distances between major centres of population; lower costs in Northern Ireland due to the operation of certain investment grant and employment subsidy schemes; the use of UK recommended list prices in Northern Ireland while shoppers here have to pay the transport and import costs; the lower cost of some food materials because of differing Green £ rates in the EEC.

There is, of course, the point that higher VAT and excise duties operate here especially in relation to motor cars and spare parts. The Minister has ensured that prices here and in Northern Ireland are monitored and compared on a continuous basis and that in so far as is possible disparity in prices is fully justified.

The Minister initiated an examination of the accounting procedures of the ESB. A working party representative of the ESB, the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy and the other economic Government Departments has been conducting an in-depth examination of this matter. Representatives of the National Prices Commission have also been available for consultation when required. The working party are in the process of finalising their report which will be submitted to the Minister shortly.

I said at the outset, and I repeat it now, that the Government are fully committed to effective price control. The Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy continues to be personally responsible for price control policy. Over the past two years the Minister has refused or reduced recommendations from the NPC for price increases on a wide variety of basic commodities. These included building materials, bottled gas, tea, flour, sugar, drink and petroleum products.

In fact the actions of the Government over two years of office have had a remarkable effect on the rate of inflation. This success has been achieved in the main against a background of adverse external economic pressures over which the Government had no control. Let us look at the rates of inflation recorded over the past two years and compare these with the astronomical rates which were commonplace during the Coalition's term of office.

The annual rate of inflation to mid-November 1976 was a startling 20.6 per cent. The annual rate to mid-November 1977—less than six months after the Government took office—was 10.8 per cent. That was the lowest recorded up to then from mid-February 1973. In other words, the rate of inflation had been halved, a remarkable achievement when we remember that the rate in the year to May 1975 was 24.5 per cent, the highest rate achieved in recent years.

The inflation rate figures recorded in 1978 are worth mentioning. In the year to mid-May 1978 the figure was 6.2 per cent; to mid-November 1978 it was 7.9 per cent. The latest available figure, the year to mid-February 1979, is 10.8 per cent, but the increase here is to some extent attributable to non-recurring price increases.

I should like to refer at this point to some increases specifically mentioned by Deputy Desmond this evening. I will refer to the prices of various commodities such as bread, tea, beef and so on and look at the percentage price increases, first of all from June 1977 to date, and compare them with the rates of increase from March 1973 to June 1977, the Coalition term of office. The increase in the price of bread during Fianna Fáil's term was 31.1 per cent as compared. with 66.6 per cent during the Coalition term. The increase in the price of a pound of tea was 28.2 per cent during Fianna Fáil's term of office and 212 per cent during the Coalition's term. The increase in the price of a pound of beef during Fianna Fáil's term has been 28.8 per cent and during the Coalition's term 49 per cent.

Is the Minister comparing four years with two years?

I am making what I regard as a valuable comparison between price increases during our two years in office and those during the Coalition's four and a half years. One must consider that most of the commodities I have mentioned are based on agriculture, and agricultural prices have increased enormously due to our EEC membership in the past number of years.

The Minister cannot get away with comparing two years with four-and-a-half years. A child would not do that.

The price of potatoes during Fianna Fáil's term increased by 38.8 per cent. During the Coalition's term the percentage increase was 119.8. The price of a pound of sugar during Fianna Fáil's term increased by 40.8 per cent. During the Coalition's term the percentage increase was 218. The price of a pound of butter during Fianna Fáil's term increased by 30 per cent and by 84 per cent during the Coalition's term.

Each of these increases takes into account the removal of the subsidies which the Opposition parties said would have a tremendously bad effect on the CPI. From mid-February 1973 to mid-August 1977 the CPI increased by 100 per cent. From mid-August 1977 to mid-February 1979—I am giving the latest figures available—the increase was 14 per cent.

The motion asks the House to "condemn the object failure of the Government to implement its election promises on prices". The fact is that the Government have lived up to their commitments on price control. The House knows this and the country knows it as well.

Perhaps unfortunately, Deputy Desmond happened to mention our present industrial situation, with particular reference to one dispute which has been the cause of tremendous concern to all of us in the House, regardless of which side we are on. He said it is having a tremendously bad effect on our image abroad and as well will tend to lead to substantial price increases when the figures come to be counted at the end of the dispute. When referring to that dispute one wonders whether it might be in the interests of the Opposition, or some parties in the Opposition, to help prolong the dispute. I do not think many of the utterances in this House have been particularly helpful towards its solution. In the European constituency which Deputy O'Toole and I represent in the House, certain vehicles belonging to the institution in which the dispute is occurring have been carrying election posters for the Chairman of the Labour Party, who happens to be a European candidate.

As I have said the Government have lived up to their commitment on price control, as people inside and outside the House are very much aware. None of us would suggest that difficulties will not occur in relation to price control but we will deal effectively with these difficulties as they arise. We are not just sitting back. Our commitment is on-going, and I can assure the House that the Minister's aim remain the same—effective price control, ensuring that the consumer will be protected adequately from excessive price increases. Price control policy is kept under continuous review to ensure that it is in a form that is best suited to the prevailing economic climate.

When the House considers my outline of what the Government have done in this regard in the past two years, I am sure it will accept readily our amendment to the motion.

I do not honestly think that the Minister is as naive as her statements here tonight would lead us to believe. She is an intelligent human being of ability and she has been trying to convince us in the Opposition, and indeed herself, that what has taken place in the past 20 months is something of which she can be proud. It is far from it, and well she knows it.

It gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to debate this subject at this time. We are discussing promises versus performance. In 1977 Fianna Fáil embarked on what has transpired to have been a reckless road in order to purchase votes in the 1977 election. That road is now strewn with the victims of those promises, with great hardships because the party in Government have failed to live up to the promises set down on paper at that time. Indeed I must give them credit for committing their promises to paper although that action may or may not turn out to be a good thing.

Fianna Fáil presented the electorate with a package of which one section dealt with prices—the now infamous Fianna Fáil manifesto. A substantial portion of that section is outlined in the motion. The Minister would have us believe that, due to the efforts of the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy, a major improvement has taken place in the NPC in so far as they can monitor and control price increase applications. Apart from very peripheral changes, there has not been any substantial change in the NPC format. I should like to say now, as I have often said, that they are to be complimented on the work they are doing. No major change has taken place; they always did their job despite allegations made by the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy when in Opposition that they were not doing their job. Indeed they were and against great odds at the time and they are still doing a good job within the terms of reference laid down for them. So on that point the Minister is not going to convince anybody about the major changes that are taking place in the restructuring of the National Prices Commission.

Indeed, on the question of the National Prices Commission let me say that the Minister has the knack of coming into this House and announcing at the odd times when he was in a position to do so that, as evidence by the case of the 5 per cent in the ESB many months ago, there has been a decrease in prices. But when price increases come about there is no statement from the Minister; it is quietly shoved out through the GIS and the NPC take the rap for the price increase. In other words by implication they are blamed but the Minister is not to be blamed. The Minister is using the NPC and it is unfair of him to do so. There was a section related to price control specifically which said that where the Government had direct influence they would not allow price increases to take place. That is part of the manifesto and yet on New Year's Day in 1979 we had substantial increases in basic food commodities due not to any outside influence or factors but due directly to Government intervention through the partial withdrawal of food subsidies.

This is surely flying in the face of solemn promises given to the electorate which reacted very favourably to the party which gave out promises and reacted to the extent of giving them 84 seats in this House. Yet a year-and-a-half later that same party is back piling hardship upon hardship through the direct intervention of the Government in partially withdrawing food subsidies. Let me remind the House that indeed the further withdrawal of food subsidies is still part of the Government's policy. It first saw the light of day in the Green Paper last year and was reiterated in the White Paper last December. So the political facts of life now are that there is still 20p per lb. of a subsidy left on butter which, according to the Government, will be taken off; there is still 5p on a large loaf which will be taken off; there is still 1½p on a pint of milk which will be taken off if we are to believe the White Paper.

Of course nowadays it is impossible to believe anything. Some weeks ago the Minister for Economic Planning and Development tried to justify in this House the removal of food subsidies on the basis that they were introduced at a time of very high inflation. At the time he was quoting the 7.9 figure as being the figure for the quarter ending mid-November 1978. In that situation he said there was no need to retain food subsidies. That was on a Tuesday night in this House. On the following Thursday afternoon, less than 48 hours later that 7.9 per cent turned out to be a rate of 16.8 per cent because on that Thursday afternoon was published the consumer price index figures for the period mid-November to mid-February and on that afternoon we discovered that over that three-month period the figure was 4.3 per cent; annualised, that is a rate of 16.8 per cent. I wonder could the Minister or the Minister of State present justify the removal of food subsidies in the light of that information?

These are some facts which we cannot deny. Now in saying this I am not trying to confuse the issue as the Minister of State did by giving us figures for the National Coalition's time in office versus Fianna Fáil's time in office. The only difference is that in her case she was comparing one period with a period which was twice as long. I am disappointed that the Minister, who is a member of my own profession, would try to do a thing like that. Indeed as she knows a first class child would not get away with it in a national school. Let us be honest with ourselves and compare like with like. Where things are comparable let us compare them and where they are not let us not try to confuse the issue.

I will give the Deputy the figures for that tomorrow night.

The facts are that the Minister gave figures for two periods one of which was twice the length of the other.

She tried to convince us that these periods were comparable. The fact is that over the past 20 months price increases of five basic food commodities have taken place, increases in the region of 30 per cent on average. That is an undeniable fact. They are the commodities which were included in the famous National Coalition basket of 1977. We can add to that the figures given today by the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy in connection with the two meat items, beef and lamb; we discover that beef has gone up by 35 per cent in that time while lamb has gone up by 50 per cent. These are official figures given by the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy and yet the Minister can tell us here that prices are being monitored and that price control is very much in vogue at the moment and is being practised. If that is so, I would ask the Minister to ask some of her constituents in West Galway what they think of the current price increases in basic food commodities.

I do not have to ask them. I know.

I know and the Minister knows the answer would be that things are going up day in, day out. The Minister of State mentioned one thing which intrigued me—in the light of what I have said—that the price increases which resulted from the withdrawal of food subsidies would be non-recurring price increases. Does that mean the Minister of State is now saying that no further subsidies will be removed from the foods on which they are present? If that is so, would the Minister say so categorically, and so amend the White Paper, the Government's policy on this issue? I challenged the Minister for Economic Planning and Development on that some time ago in this House and he evaded the issue when winding up on the budget debate. The Minister of State has implied very strongly that no further food subsidies will be removed. If that is so, I would ask that that statement be made in plain English that people can understand and avoid this evasive kind of language which could mean anything.

On the question of housing the Minister of State made the point that the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy had gone to great lengths to ensure a reduction in the price of building materials. I should like to know where these reductions took place because, if they did, definitely they did not reach the consumer. The Minister is aware herself that in her own city—which is reputed to be the most expensive housing area in the country, not the most favourable tag to be attached to any area—house prices have gone literally mad in the past 18 months. I understand that in 1978 house prices generally increased by something like 34 per cent. Yet we are told the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy, through his negotiations and consultations, succeeded in reducing the cost of building materials. That may very well be so but if we are so taken up with price control and if the Minister's Department are so deliberate in their views on the matter and so enthusiastic to ensure that the consumer gets a fair deal why not translate these negotiations into reductions to the consumer? That is not happening. There is something amiss somewhere. That is the only conclusion I can draw from what I see happening and I am sure the electorate is just as confused as I am about this kind of statement.

The question of oil and energy has been raised also. The Minister went to great lengths to outline for us the background to oil price reductions in 1978 and the breaking of the agreement regarding the seven-day UK outer zone promised to be abolished by Fianna Fáil. A year later they said it was impossible to do so. Now the agreement is broken by default, not by any deliberate action on the part of the Minister or the Government. The Minister of State went to great lengths to outline the background to that. Mind you, she did not spend much time on the latter day history of our oil situation since January last.

We had an hour's discussion on all that today.

The Minister is obliged to give a balanced view and statement, not to give one side of the position only. The Minister may or may not be aware that people are concerned about the position today. They are concerned also about the price they are paying for oil to-day. They are concerned also about the fact that the Minister and her Department would seem to have lost control of price control in oil at this very moment. I shall not talk about Question Time today; hopefully we will have one more hour tomorrow along the same lines. What I am saying is that there are oil companies exploiting us here. The Minister was given a national pat on the back for his stand against the oil companies a few weeks ago. What did it turn out to be? It transpired that the Minister was going through the motions of being a tough man to justify the confirmation of a price increase the following day; that it all it amounted to. The Minister of State knows that as does the Minister himself. We were not given the information sought today on many issues; at present this country is not being given the information sought. On the question of oil prices we want to know whether or not oil companies are in a position to hold this country to ransom. Our people want to know what controls the Minister can impose to ensure, first, an adequate supply of fuel for energy and, secondly, at what price, and can that price be controlled? Those are the questions left unanswered today and remain unanswered now by the Minister of State. A more balanced view should have been given by the Minister of State in her explanatory note on which oil prices are all about because to 99.99 per cent of our people seven-day outer zone agreements do not mean a thing, not one iota; what they are concerned with is when they will be paying £1.20, £1.30 or £1.50 per gallon for petrol. That is the issue at stake. Likewise they want to know if they can get heating oil. They want to know also if they can obtain sufficient diesel oil for their tractors to farm their land. Seven-day outer zone agreements are technical matters which affect people very much but the questions the ordinary people are asking are not being answered in plain language they can understand simply because the Minister or the Government have not the answers because, if they had, they would shout them from the rooftops.

We have had evasion. We have had figures thrown at us. The Minister of State must admit that the figures she gave are not figures that can be taken at face value. It would take a very swift operator of a mathematical calculator to figure out exactly what were the comparative figures from the two sets given by the Minister because she was referring to two total different periods.

On the question of the media, on the dissemination of information concerning prices, let me refresh the Minister's mind. In their manifesto there was a very definite promise that Fianna Fáil, in Government, would ensure adequate weekly dissemination of information on prices.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share