Deputy Enright has ten minutes left.
Private Members' Business. - Price Control: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
"That Dáil Éireann notes the continued failure of the Government to take decisive action in the area of the control of prices after almost three years in office; aware of the promises of the Government contained in pages 10 and 11 of the Fianna Fáil Manifesto relating in particular to its undertaking to discourage increased costs and prices in all areas where it has control and influence; and to examine the accounting procedures of the ESB with a view to reducing the price of electricity; also notes that since the beginning of 1980 further price increases have been sanctioned by the Government including increases of 10.5 per cent in coal, 20.5 per cent in ESB rates, 4 per cent in milk, 10 per cent in bread, 20 per cent in CIE fares, 29 pence in bottled gas —all of which have hit the weaker sections of the community hardest— and condemns this further abject failure of the Government to cushion the most disadvantaged sections of the community from the effects of price increases by their deliberate escalation of these price trends due to their own policies such as the abolition of food subsidies."
—(Deputy B. Desmond)
I wish to point out that inflation in the past year showed a 100 per cent increase, being 7.9 per cent in 1977-78 as against just 16 per cent in 1978-79. The situation is extremely serious for those in the lower and middle income groups where the husband only is working in the family. Such workers, their wives and families are finding it almost impossible to live. Basic necessities such as bread, butter, milk, meat, heating, lighting and transport have had increases in prices of such a nature and magnitude that many families are finding it daily more difficult to retain their standard of living. Parents with large families spend a greater amount of their income on food, heating and lighting, especially on food. Many such families have suffered a drop in their standard of living. Many families are forced to do without the essentials of life because of the increase in the cost of living. It is imperative that the Minister takes more serious action than he has taken up to now.
The Minister's speech last Wednesday night was the poorest speech I have ever heard a Minister giving in relation to price control. He tried to make a case for the Government in regard to prices. He said that on 34 occasions during the past two-and-a-half years in respect of 49 commodities he either refused or reduced the recommendation. The Minister took action on 34 occasions only. Many thousand of applications were made to the Minister in regard to price increases but he did something only in relation to this small number. He stated later in his speech:
The question of price control is being monitored vigorously and being followed up by me. Unlike my predecessor, I have taken a constant personal interest in this area. In accordance with our undertaking in the manifesto, I have not acted as a rubber stamp at any time.
The Minister admitted there that he is responsible but he has failed to do anything concrete to control prices.
The Minister has been one of the most obvious failures in the Government in relation to the particular matter which is his responsibility. No matter where I visit, whether it is houses, shops or meetings that I attend, everybody wants to know from me why the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism fails to act. I believe the House is right in asking the Minister why he has failed to act in relation to price control. The situation is slowly but surely getting out of hand and if the Minister does not act immediately the situation will be beyond redemption in the very near future.
Bread, butter, milk, lighting and heating are the basic necessities of life. If the Minister does not take some action and do something for the people concerned he and his Government will be condemned for their failure to take action. We cannot stand idly by and see young families deprived of the basic necessities of life. Every day in the national newspapers we see announcements of price increases. There was a time when a budget meant something, but tomorrow's budget is something different because since the beginning of the year we have had a budget almost every weekend because of the inactivity of the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism in relation to controlling prices. The Minister must do something about this matter immediately.
Last Wednesday evening we discussed the situation in relation to price control. As well as price control it is essential to have quality control and also control of standards. I have seen items on the shelves in supermarkets, such as tinned fruits, meat and fish which are of very poor quality, without any proper labelling. People are paying out their hardearned money for those items in supermarkets who have imported those goods. Many of those items are inedible. It is time the Minister controlled the standard and quality of goods sold in our supermarkets. The only place the Minister's inspectors seem to call are at the small grocers. They should go into a lot of the supermarkets and investigate the quality of the goods sold and the prices charged. In some of the large supermarkets people are not allowed to question the quality or the standard of the goods sold. People have even been asked to leave those supermarkets when they raise such matters.
After the last increase in the price of petrol was announced there was a misunderstanding on the part of some of the oil companies. The price of petrol was not due to be increased until the Tuesday after it had been announced. Some of the major oil companies charged the full increase in the price of petrol they delivered to the retailers before that date. Did the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism take any action against those oil companies? Those major oil companies should not have been allowed to charge the increase for petrol supplies they delivered to retailers before the increase was due to take place. They simply said afterwards that it was a misunderstanding. If the petrol retailers had charged the increased price on the Monday the Minister should have brought them before the District Court. If they said it was due to a misunderstanding they would have been convicted in the District Court.
It is not right that there should be one law for the poor retailers, the shopkeepers and the publicans and another law for the multi-nationals. All people are equal before the courts and before this House. The Minister will want to tell me tonight whether or not he took any action and whether he intends taking any action against the multinationals. The same law must be applied for everybody throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. It is a poor excuse to say it was a misunderstanding. It is time the Minister flexed his muscles and showed a bit of guts in regard to his approaches against them.
I wish to support this motion in full.
On that last point, the Minister, Deputy O'Malley, through his officials, immediately contacted the oil companies and in any case where there had been an overcharge there was an immediate refund.
In speaking to the motion before the House the main point to be made is that the Government's commitment in regard to prices was, is, and will continue to be for effective price control. Effective price control means ensuring that the minimum unavoidable price increase is passed on to the consumer. The work of my Department and its inspectorate and the operations of the National Prices Commission are geared towards this end. The scrutiny and the recommendations in the Department ensure that this end is met.
As the Minister pointed out last Wednesday when speaking to this motion, effective price control does not mean rejecting all applications for price increases while cost increases continue to occur. Opposition speakers—and we have just heard an example from Deputy Enright—may indulge themselves in trying to capture newspaper headlines with raucous cries of despair at every price increase that is approved. They cannot, however, get away from the economic facts. If we need oil to fuel the economy we must pay the higher prices being charged by OPEC and other oil suppliers. If we continue to award ourselves higher wages and salaries we must pay the resultant high prices for our goods and services.
Let me give an example—and I do not wish to convey the impression that wages and salaries are the only factors which cause price increases. Let us compare the actual increases in average weekly earnings since June of 1976 with the increases provided for under the various national wage agreements in the same period. In both cases a base wage of £51.19 per week is used; this was the actual average weekly wage in the second quarter of 1976. Let us look, first of all, at actual earnings. In the second quarter of 1976, taking £51.19 as the base, this has increased to the first quarter of 1979 to £76.64, an increase of 49.7 per cent. The national wage agreements in that period provided for an increase from £51.19 to £65.58, that is, 28 per cent. So the national wage agreements allowed for an increase of 28 per cent while wages and salaries increased by 49.7 per cent. This gives some idea of the wage scales involved in some of the price allocations. This compares with an increase of 31.8 per cent in the CPI in the same period. If one compares 49.7 per cent and 31.8 per cent it will illustrate the point I am making.
The consequences would be predictable if all applications for price increases were to be rejected out of hand while cost increases continued to occur. We would have bankruptcies and redundancies would follow within a short period. In many cases supplies of goods to the Irish market would cease altogether. Given the increased cost of imported materials and the size of the increases in money incomes which have occurred in recent years, increased costs can nowadays only very rarely be met from profits or fully offset by improvements in productivity and efficiency. If price control were to be applied in this way it would soon become irrelevant. No products would be available at the controlled prices and the social cost to the community would soon become intolerable. Deputy Desmond, in proposing the motion on Wednesday evening last in his prepared script which he was kind enough to provide us with——
On a point of order, would the Minister say if he considers that he is entitled to use a script in view of the fact that he objected so strongly to Deputy Desmond reading from one?
Ministers have always been allowed to use scripts.
A Minister opening or closing a debate is allowed to use a script and no other Minister is allowed to do so.
I have copious notes here. Deputy Desmond missed the section in his script. In the unrevised report of the Dáil he said:
I would strongly point out that price control and surveillance can be so operated as to limit price increases to the minimum and to prevent prices increases or charges being increased without full justification.
The fact behind the recent price increases specified in the motion clearly proved that because of the efforts of the Minister and the Government price control is being operated in this way. The Minister has already detailed for the House the cost increases which led to these price increases. He has also made it clear to the House that, as a result of the stringent examination of the price increases proposed in the first instance by the National Prices Commission and the Minister, significant reductions were made in the price increases approved as compared with the amounts sought by the applicants. This is the fulfilment of the Government's commitment on prices and shows the way in which the Minister has exercised his personal responsibility to ensure that price increases are thoroughly justified.
The motion before the House speaks of the failure of the Government to live up to their commitments on price control. The Minister has already pointed out that the main target of the Government's policy on price control is to reduce the rate of inflation. It is interesting to look at the movement in the inflation rate in recent years and to use it as a guage to measure the success or failure of the Government's policies. In the three years prior to the Government's assumption of office, 1974, 1975 and 1976, we experienced annual inflation rates of 17 per cent, 20.9 per cent and 18 per cent respectively. The movement in oil prices over the corresponding period was from $10.55 for a barrel of light Arabian crude in 1974 to $12.95 a barrel in 1976, an increase of $2.4 or 23 per cent a barrel over the period. The annual inflation rate for 1977, 1978 and 1979, the first three years of this Government, were 13.7 per cent, 7.6 per cent and 13.2 per cent respectively. These rates are all the more impressive when one notes that oil prices over the corresponding period were a staggering 26 US dollars in 1980 from $12.70 in 1977. That is an increase of $13.3 US or 105 per cent a barrel over the period. It is no harm to look at those figures again. Under the Coalition Government from 1974 to 1976, inflation was 17 per cent, 20.9 per cent and 18 per cent and there was an increase in the cost of a barrel of light Arabian crude of approximately $2.4. The Fianna Fáil Government were faced with an increase of $13.3 but we maintained inflation rates at 13.7 per cent, 7.6 per cent and 13.2 per cent.
The base line the Minister is using is most interesting.
This has been an incredible achievement. When the National Coalition were in office they bleated all the time about the cost of oil but they did not have to tackle problems remotely like those tackled by Fianna Fáil with regard to oil.
In the six-month period from June 1973 to January 1974 the price of oil quadrupled.
The Minister is in possession and he should be allowed to continue without interruption.
I am only pointing out the facts.
The figures show that with regard to inflation the Government's targets were achieved. As Deputy O'Malley pointed out, an appreciable decrease is expected in the inflation rate for the period mid-November to mid-February. I am sure that Deputy Enright and Members on the other side of the House will be pleased about this from a national point of view.
Deputy Desmond referred to the Price Line system of notification of complaints by consumers and he urged the Government to extend the system and to make it more effective. The Government did not have to await his urgings in this regard. When Fianna Fáil took office in 1977 there were 45 inspectors in the Department engaged in the enforcement of price control legislation and the investigation of complaints. On 15 February 1980 the number of inspectors in the Department involved in price investigation had increased to 83. During the year ended 28 December 1979, the inspectorate investigated 6,342 complaints received at the Price Line centres and they found that 3,798, or 60 per cent, of the complaints were well founded. Evidence of contravention of price control orders for legal proceedings was obtained in 4,509 instances. There were 549 breaches of price charge display orders. As a result of the work of the inspectorate, refunds were made in 18,094 cases. During 1979 cases against 866 traders were heard and fines and expenses totalling £5,994 were imposed in respect of breaches of orders made under the Acts.
The Price Line offices have been well utilised since their establishment particularly in the larger population centres. Up to the beginning of 1980 they had dealt with approximately 66,000 complaints and enquiries. I should like to take this opportunity to encourage all consumers to bring complaints of overcharging to the notice of my Department in order that they can be investigated. Complaints may be brought to the attention of the Minister or of the Department or to the attention of Price Line offices throughout the country. The offices are located in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Athlone, Galway, Sligo and Waterford.
Deputy Desmond, in proposing the motion, referred at some length to the fact that he and his colleagues in the Labour Party had been arguing for some years in favour of greater involvement of consumers in price matters. It is the belief of the Government that the provision of the fullest possible information and advisory service to the consumer is the best way in which to get him or her involved in a beneficial way. I am sure the figures I have provided, which show the large increase in recent years in the number of inspectors involved in this work, indicate that instead of talking about the matter for a number of years the Government have been taking decisive action.
The Government are concerned to ensure that the general public have as much information as is possible with regard to prices including the reasons prices are increased. We think that the people who have to bear the brunt of the increases should know the reason. The various consumer and price programmes presented on radio by RTE are a great help in this regard. In addition, since the beginning of last year a member of the National Prices Commission, Mrs. Mairead Allen, has been presenting an excellent weekly prices programme each Friday on television. I should like to take this opportunity to assure RTE that both the NPC and the Prices Division of my Department are always available and willing to provide any information or expertise that may be required in relation to prices.
My Department also provide a continuous flow of information on prices matters to the national newspapers, but unfortunately it is not always published. I would be less than honest if I did not say that some newspapers seem more interested in providing scare headlines predicting huge price increases. In my view this practice is irresponsible and it can be extremely harmful. It is not beneficial to our efforts to improve the economy and it simply serves to strengthen the psychology of inflation. It can be particularly dangerous at times when wage negotiations are in the formative stage.
Deputy Enright suggested that the NPC should consider the increasing price of drugs. He knows as well as I do that 95 per cent of drugs are imported and, as such, there is no way we can control the import price. He spent the rest of the time speaking about matters that were more relevant to the Restrictive Practices Commission than to the National Prices Commission.
This motion asks the House "to note the continued failure of the Government to take decisive action in the area of the control of prices after almost three years in office". The fact is that the Government have lived up to their commitment on price control. The House and the country know this. The changes in price control introduced since the Government took office have resulted in a far more rigorous examination of price proposals than before and have had the effect of increasing the Government's influence and control in the prices area. Many of the procedures have been tightened up and attention has been directed to those areas where useful work can be done to maximise the effect of our price control arrangements.
However, I should not like to give the impression that review of the operations of the NPC is a once-off affair. The review is ongoing and the methods of the commission are subject to constant changes, both on their own initiative and on the direction of the Minister. This was one of the points we put forward in our manifesto. When Deputy Desmond was speaking here the other evening he gave the impression that the manifesto had been torn up or that copies were no longer available. He was talking about his much-treasured copy. There is nothing whatsoever to be hidden and to hide away from in the Government's commitment, enforcement and working of their prices proposals.
In part 1 of the manifesto we promised a review of the operations of the commission. The Minister had this as one of his primary concerns in taking up office and he initiated a review of existing methods of price control. He met the prices commission on a number of occasions in 1977 and discussed with them the possible restructuring of the commission together with detailed proposals for more rigorous examination of price increase applications. Again in 1978 on a number of occasions he met them and the commission submitted to the Minister detailed reports of suggestions. On these reports decisions were taken the details of which were released in a press statement in October 1978. These referred to such items as price contracts, notification of price increases, export exemption and transfer pricing items, the whole question of currency fluctuations and new rules and guidelines. As well as that involvement in the re-structuring of the prices commission the Government also appointed an economist to the commission to assist them in the work as a member of the commission.
In item 2 of our manifesto promise we referred to discouraging increased costs and prices in all areas where we have control or influence. Once again I would refer to the action taken by Minister O'Malley in this field where—unlike his predecessor about whom there is no record of one single occasion in the Department where he either cut back or refused a price application—he, as part of a follow-on to our manifesto commitments to the people, on 34 different occasions has cut-back or refused price applications.
In the third item of our manifesto we also committed ourselves to an investigation of such items as the cost to the housewife of fish, vegetables and so on. This investigation was carried out as we promised. In 1977-78 we looked at the vegetable market and at meat and we had consultants appointed by the commission to look into the pricing of fish generally.
In item 4 of our commitment to the people we talked of full dissemination of information with regard to prices. I have already dealt with the operation of RTE 2 and the radio programmes involved. As well as that, on Thursday of each week we issue to the four daily papers the results of a survey in Dublin, Cork and Limerick of fruit and vegetable prices and at least once a month we send to all of the papers the result of the survey on meat prices. If the papers do not publish this information surely the Government cannot be held responsible for that.
Item 5 of our commitment to the people in our manifesto with regard to prices referred to control by legislation, in the interests of consumers, of monopolies and mergers. Of course the House is familiar with the fact that we introduced the monopolies legislation which has been passed and has been enforced rigorously.
Item 6 of the manifesto says that we will abolish the seven-day rule arising out of the outer UK zone in respect of fuel price increases as there is no price control at all under the present system. We did it. We abolished the seven-day rule and now all applications for price increases in fuel are examined closely on their merit, taking account of the OPEC price increases. With item 6, as with the other five, we have met our commitments in the manifesto fully.
We referred in item 7 to an investigation of Northern Ireland prices and this was carried out. We went on to talk about cars, parts, tyres and so on. We carried out a survey and a comparison which we extended not only to Dublin and Belfast but we looked at Liverpool as well. The latest comparison of grocery prices in Dublin, Belfast and Liverpool was undertaken in the last week of June 1979 and produced 239 common items where a price comparison was made which showed that the total cost of the items in Dublin and Belfast was practically the same while Liverpool was 2 or 3 per cent cheaper. We have been meeting our commitments under the manifesto.
Item 8 states:
Fianna Fáil will regard price control as an important matter and will therefore revert to the position where a member of the Government is responsible for it and for dealing with the underlying causes of inflation.
Of course we were all familiar with the situation under the Coalition where a Parliamentary Secretary was involved in price matters. The previous Minister did not like to become involved in such tiresome work as examining and reading the detailed files of price applications. Minister O'Malley has undertaken that responsibility and, as can be seen from the figure of those cutbacks and refusals, has been doing it well.
The last item of the commitment on prices made by the Government in the manifesto was that the accounting procedures of the ESB were being examined and brought up to date with a view to reducing the price of electricity. A high level inter-departmental committee were set up and a report from that committee is expected very shortly and action will be taken in the light of that. However, we must recognise that we are dependent for 80 per cent of electricity generation in this country on imported oil. We cannot overlook the fact that we have seen those increases in the two year period that I spoke about earlier of 105 per cent in the cost of a barrel of light Arabian crude and this has had its effect on ESB prices.
That is not in the manifesto.
My Department also provide a continuous flow of information on price matters through national newspapers, as I said earlier. It is important that we get across to the people who have to pay the prices why they have to pay the prices. I regret that the continuous flow of information is not always published. I would like to see greater publication of some of the information that we send to explain to the public exactly what is going on.
In conclusion, I must admit to being somewhat perplexed at the Opposition regularly tabling motions of this nature. Their contribution to the debate on this and on previous occasions was overwhelmingly simplistic and totally divorced from the reality of the situation. The Government have lived up to their commitment on price control, as I have outlined. None of us would suggest that difficulties will not occur, but we will deal effectively with those difficulties as they arise. We are not sitting back. Price control will be kept under review to ensure that it takes a form best suited to the prevailing economic climate. When the House consider the facts, I am confident that the motion will be defeated.
Before Deputy Tully starts, in view of the matter raised by him earlier, I checked on the rulings on the House down the years. The ruling given on numerous occasions is that a Member is not entitled to read his speech but he may consult notes. A Minister, according to precedent, is allowed to read important statements of policy or fact.
A speech made by a Minister which is not an important statement should not be read.
The Chair must accept that every statement made by every Member is important and factual.
The comments made by the speaker who just sat down could not by any stretch of the imagination be considered to be important, of national importance or of interest to anybody except the people who wrote the script and the Minister. Having experienced it myself, I am amused by Ministers who when they were on this side of the House introduced all kinds of irrelevant matters into debates such as this but who have suddenly become very sedate and lecture the underlings in this House on the way in which they make their speeches. It is also interesting to note that the Minister, Deputy O'Malley, who felt so strongly about a previous Minister putting a mere Minister of State in charge of prices could not find the time to be here tonight for an important debate.
That is totally unfair. The Minister has no right to speak tonight, as the Deputy knows.
The Minister has the right to listen to what has been said, especially having thrown abuse across the House last week at the people who had put down the motion. When the last Fianna Fáil Government took office after the election the then Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch made a statement to the effect that he was putting a lady as Minister of State in charge of prices. I have a great regard for Deputy Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn, who is well able to deal with matters which are put under her control. When that Deputy was allocated to that job, a representative of one of the women's organisations was interviewed on television and she nearly danced a jig with delight that at last a Taoiseach was putting a woman in charge of prices. Deputy Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn slipped into the background and never came forward to take charge of prices and then Deputy O'Malley took up the cudgel and decided to deal with prices. It is now amusing to note a suggestion that on no occasion was anybody except Deputy O'Malley in charge of prices. Deputy Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn apparently did not do so well in that job because, despite what Fianna Fáil would have us believe, prices did not go back to square one and then start rising again, prices continued to rise from the level at which they were when Fianna Fáil took office in 1977 and have been going up since.
When the Minister of State talks about controlling inflation, does he remember his late colleague, the man who would arrange everything, the man who would wave a wand and put the country back into a state of prosperity? Does the Deputy remember when this man convinced everybody, including his own colleagues, that the rate of inflation in 1979 would be not 12, 13, or 20 per cent but 5 per cent? That man possibly got the sack for making a wrong guess. It is amusing to hear people saying that Fianna Fáil are doing very well, that they are keeping inflation under 20 per cent, when they were predicting that the inflation rate would be 5 per cent. We are at four times that and it is still going up, unfortunately.
Deputy Desmond has been taken to task about what he said in reference to the manifesto. I do not have the respect he has for the manifesto, which contained the seed from which the Fianna Fáil victory sprung. If it was not so tragic it would be funny to hear the Fianna Fáil representatives claiming that what was promised in the manifesto has been implemented.
I am surprised at the Minister of State because, like myself and like his father was, he is in touch with the people and must know that we have again reached the stage where old people can tell us that they have not tasted meat in over two years, that they are not able to buy the necessities of life and that the only place they are warm is in bed. Indeed, some of them have died in bed. There are people with plenty of money to buy whatever they want. We do not begrudge them that, but we feel that they should pay their share in order to help the less well off. This Government deliberately increased prices by removing the food subsidies which were put on to keep prices down to aid the poor people. Before that, Fianna Fáil removed the wealth tax from a small number of immensely wealthy people who, if they lived to be as old as Methuselah and never got another shilling, would not be able to spend what they have. That situation makes us cynical about what Fianna Fáil really believe.
The Minister of State referred to the increase in the average industrial wage but I wonder if he has ever stopped to think what "average" means. It means taking the wage at the bottom of the scale, adding it to the wage at the top and then dividing them. There are hundreds of thousands of people working all week for a wage of £40 or £50, or perhaps as much as £60, on which they are trying to exist and rear a family while also paying tax under the PAYE system. Hundreds of these workers are employed in small industries throughout the country. Farm workers have received a fairly substantial increase in wages and a reduction in hours but they are still amongst the lowest paid. The same applies to non-professional people working in hospitals. I was a trade union official for 30 years and I tried to drag those people off their knees. It is sad in 1980 to see that they are still unable to buy shoes for their children if they are to feed them every day. A child may come home from school with a bill for books amounting to £10 and in many cases there are six or seven children in the family. What are the parents to do? If they spend the money on school books they cannot buy food and clothing. The Government seem to think such people are doing well enough and if that is their idea they are living in ivory towers from which they will soon be flung.
The Minister referred to the way in which price increases are notified to the public and the great care taken to ensure that the report on prices is passed to the Government. It is not correct to say that there was no case where prices recommended to the Minister's predecessor were altered. I was a member of that Cabinet and I know the facts. It is unethical that the matter should be raised here and I consider that it is a misstatement. When we were in office prices which were sanctioned at the Cabinet table were published in the newspapers but the present Minister said he would stop that practice because it was not necessary. There is no means by which the general public can become aware of price increases unless they can read them in print. Fianna Fáil were too clever for that; they would not be caught in that way. Some people may hear a radio broadcast or read something in a paper but if increases are published in the national newspapers on a monthly basis everybody should be aware of them. At present most people are not aware of price increases until they go shopping.
How are people to know what items have been increased when the report of the prices commission is not published until months afterwards? The last report published related to November and the December and January reports have yet to be published. The reason why newspapers will not go to the trouble of publishing these reports is that the news is already stale. The Official Report of debates in this House is printed within 24 hours or, at most, 72 hours and we have no trouble in getting it from one week to the next. The delay in publishing the prices reports would seem to be an attempt to cover up price increases. The newspapers publish some information which is given by the Minister's Department. The number of price increases published each week is about three or four, but the average per month is 40. In the month of November there were 53 price increases.
While this debate is concerned with consumer goods, we tend to concentrate on food but everything else is increasing as well. Increases take place not over a period of months but from week to week on items which some might consider luxuries but which are necessities for ordinary living. Fianna Fáil sit back and say they are doing very well and carrying out their promises. They said they would introduce stricter controls on prices and I was very amused at the Minister's comment about having the strictest price controls in the EEC. He talked of worrying about not allowing large enough increases and the difficulties experienced by some manufacturers. I know some increases are requested which are very much in excess of what is required and some of these are allowed. Even the granting of a small proportion of such requests is deplorable.
The Minister and the Minister of State talked about oil prices. I have great respect for the Minister of State and I would hate to say that he had said anything dishonest. However, it is dishonest to say that the percentage increase in oil prices now is greater than it was in 1973-74. As Deputy Enright pointed out earlier, there was one six-month period when oil prices quadrupled and despite that prices were kept down, though Fianna Fáil kept yapping about prices from the Opposition benches as if all they had to do was get back into power and wave a magic wand which would cause prices to go down.
Let us consider food prices. A crack was made about the fact that Deputy Barry Desmond spoke of hotel prices. One could have a meal in a hotel at night and pay two or three times the amount which one would pay for the same meal at lunchtime. If one goes to Washington one can buy much cheaper meals than are available here and it is not correct to say that wages are lower. Steak can be bought in a shop in Washington for about half the price charged in Ireland. We have been told that the Government are regularly monitoring meat prices. Like everything else, fruit, fish and vegetables, they keep an eye on the prices of those commodities and inspect them but they do not do anything else. They consider that the fact that the eye of the Government has fallen on those items should be sufficient for our people. They feel they should not be expected to do anything more and the fact that the great white chiefs have looked at those commodities should be sufficient.
Whether we like it or not we are reaching a stage where an enormous number of our people are finding it very difficult to exist. I would hate to guess at what will be in tomorrow's budget but I can recall the Minister for Finance's predecessor telling us about taxing short-term social welfare benefits. If that is done more people will be put on the breadline and bread is not something that can be purchased too cheaply now. In my constituency recently I met an old age pensioner who told me he had to buy two bags of coal weekly to keep his house warm. That pensioner had been down to the local shop and with £1 left out of his pension wanted to get half-a-dozen eggs, a loaf—one of the ones which Deputy O'Malley says is not bought too often and now costs an extra 5p—and a half pound of rashers, but he did not have sufficient money in that £1 for those messages. This is an agricultural country but people cannot buy things because they cannot afford them.
The one thing which, above all else, will damn Fianna Fáil when they next go to the polls is the question of prices. Shoes have also increased in price. I am aware that the smallest of shoes for my grandchildren cost between £7 and £11 and they are not fancy shoes. A working man when he goes to purchase an ordinary pair of shoes or boots will be presented with pairs costing £25 to £30 but will have to be satisfied with a very poor pair costing £17 or £18. In the last ten years I admired the fact that people in country districts were dressing better but because those people can no longer pay for clothing they have to resort to using patches again. I will not go into the increase in the price of oil and petrol because those who use cars and burn oil for central heating are a little better off than the average person. However, I know of working people who used drive from my constituency to work in Dublin and have had to give up work because of the cost of petrol and repairs. The price charged for spares and repairs have gone through the roof. It is not safe to pass a garage slowly because one is likely to be given an estimate for £100 for repairing a dinge one had not noticed. Damage to cars is also increasing because local authorities are unable to repaid roads. I am told that one of the reasons for this is that materials have got very expensive.
All prices have gone through the roof without the realisation of the situation having seeped through Fianna Fáil. The extraordinary thing is that Fianna Fáil are satisfied that once they are in power such things do not happen or if they do, it is too bad, it is the people who are responsible for such increases and not the great white chiefs. We have been told many times about what the new Fianna Fáil Government propose to do. I do not know why it has been described as a new Government because it consists of ten of the scrap 15 they had running the country up to December. We have not been told how they intend improving the situation of the ordinary people. The only way they can improve their position is to do something definite about prices.
The Government did not have any hesitation in taking off all the subsidy on some food and half the subsidy on other items and they have threatened to remove the balance of the subsidy tomorrow. I suggest that before they do that they should take the money they need from the rich. There are enough rich people to pay for the subsidy required. Deputy O'Malley bragged about the two slight reductions in ESB charges which were given shortly after he took office. Had the accountancy been a little better and had the ESB looked at what they were doing they would not have had to look for three times the amount he took off within a short period afterwards. It is obvious that Deputy O'Malley bullied the ESB into giving the reductions because he felt that cosmetically such a move would look well. However, the money had to be found somewhere and it was found by taking it out of the pockets of the ordinary people.
The Minister boasted about the difference between the price of bottled gas here and in Great Britain. He told us that bottled gas here had only increased to £3.60 while the same size cyclinder cost more than £4 in Great Britain. Just a few years ago the price of bottled gas, including the cylinder, was 75p but now the cylinder alone costs £10. Fianna Fáil seem to think that this is a grand way to treat our people. After all, they feel that when Fianna Fáil are in office everybody should be warm and should not need such things as bottled gas. In relation to coal prices I should like to remind the Minister that the National Prices Commission reported on the price of coal, a report which was not published for several months after it had been presented to the Minister. Coal merchants then increased the price of coal by less than half the recommendation in that report. After a short time the merchants had another look at the report and felt they had been foolish and the Government felt it was all right for them to increase the price of coal again. After all, why should they take 25p when they could get 50p. Knowing the Minister's family background I am sure he has never had the experience of waiting for the coalman to deliver one bag of coal per week.
I had the experience.
I am rather surprised to hear that. When the coalman arrives the woman of the house meets him with the money for the previous week's supply but more often than not she is informed that the price has increased by 25p or so. Very often housewives do not have that extra money. In country districts coal merchants, who are not in the business in a big way, must wait for their money with the result that somebody else must go short. The situation is similar in regard to milk. Families must now cut back by at least one bottle of milk per day because of the increase in price. The Government should come down from cloud nine and realise that the fact that they are in Government does not matter that much. Prices have been increasing and I am not sure if they are aware of that. Those who must buy a lot of food weekly are finding it almost impossible to pay for it.
Ministers and in particular the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism, are talking through their hats if they think that workers will be satisfied without an increase or with a very small increase in wages this year when the Government have not made any effort to keep prices at a reasonable level. Unless there is some attempt to rectify the situation wages must continue to increase because the workers are not prepared to accept the sort of codology in which the Government have been engaging.
I should like to comment briefly on the continuous flow of comment in regard to our election manifesto. I would suggest to the Opposition that there was a good deal of significance in the extent to which they lost the last election and in the extent to which we won it. More than any other issue, the question of prices was the greatest factor in the downfall of the Coalition.
The National Prices Commission exercise the strictest control possible on prices. Senator Keating, as Minister, set up under the NPC a study group to investigate price levels and they found that prices were reasonable and fair. A similar exercise has been repeated since. The Opposition, if they wish to be critical in regard to the dedicated and positive work of the commission, should put forward some tangible alternative recommendations: they have a duty to spell out an alternative mechanism.
It is particularly interesting that Deputy Desmond should have moved this motion. As colleagues on the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Semi-State Bodies, he and I have been present in recent months when both CIE and Board na Móna were being investigated by the committee. In every instance the senior executives representing these companies were able to more than justify the price increases that were granted by the NPC. Therefore, Deputy Desmond is not being constructive in coming in here and criticising semi-State bodies who are doing very worthwhile jobs and who, despite having to seek increases in costs, make every effort to hold prices at reasonable levels. In the case of Bord na Móna we were told that peat briquettes which are a basic commodity produced by the company, are one of the cheapest forms of fuel available but that they were held at artificially low prices. The result has been that demand cannot be met in terms of output.
Again, there is the question of oil prices and without going into detail in respect of the rapid increases that have taken place in this regard, we must realise that oil prices will increase further. During the past ten years oil prices have increased by 2,000 per cent. The Coalition failed miserably to make any impact on price control. Today at the meeting of the EEC Consumer Group in Dublin, everybody concerned was given an opportunity to state his case on prices. We can never be happy with a situation of continuing price increases but we must face facts.
On the question of how best one might deal with the question of price increases, excessive claims can be made by one side to the effect that prices can be contained. This charge can be laid fairly at the door of the present administration because I recall a time, not so very long ago either, when Deputies who are now in Government claimed from the Opposition benches, that the element in price increases which related to external events could be ignored or minimised and that sole responsibility for the high inflation of the period between 1975 and 1977 could be laid squarely at the door of those who were presumptuous enough to usurp the position of Government.
The claim was made by those Deputies at the time that by their being created a different psychological climate as a result of the return to office of Fianna Fáil, the whole matter of increases and of inflation could be contained. These are the same Deputies who, now transformed into Ministers and Ministers of State, must admit that the external element in price increases must be accepted.
The Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism makes the point that this motion represents merely a ritual exercise on the part of the Labour Party, an exercise which he says he expects will be repeated at six-monthly intervals. He is right in so far as his reference to six-monthly intervals is concerned. In fairness to that Minister he was not ashamed to acknowledge the debt of the Government to the manifesto programme. We know that very high reputations have hit the dust because of their connections with that programme, that while some people have lost their positions in the Cabinet because of it, others are trying to gain admission to some positions near the Cabinet by disavowing any connection with the manifesto.
The Minister said that we thought Fianna Fáil were joking when they said they would reduce inflation to 7 per cent. We know now that they were joking.
Inflation was reduced to that level in 1978.
Yes, but in 1980 the figure is expected to be between 16 and 18 per cent. It is always possible in a particularly favourable period to select figures to suggest what was done, but the reality is that the Government have not been able to exorcise that element in price increases that is caused by external events. The last speaker, another potential Minister of State, referred to that aspect when he talked about oil price increases. In the autumn of 1973 there occurred an event which was not regarded by the then Opposition as being of any significance. I refer to an increase in oil prices to the extent of 400 per cent.
Let us talk in dollars.
That opened up a whole new era and we can never return to the period of cheap energy. Therefore, all future Irish Governments must cope in the best way possible with the question of price control. This Government are presiding over an economy in which inflation, depending on what steps are to be taken tomorrow in the area of indirect taxation, may increase to 16 per cent. There is nobody in Opposition who takes satisfaction from that prospect. It is a situation which erodes any public confidence there may be in the democratic system and puts a question mark over this Parilament because members of the public will query the effectiveness of having a parliament which appears to be impotent on the question of how people may live in a situation in which prices increase from week to week. To the ordinary person going to his supermarket, there seems to be no end to price increases. Protests about the Government's inability to contain price increases come ill from the members of an administration who deliberately dismantled the food subsidies programme.
There were many mistakes made by the previous administration——
True.
——and the electorate did not forget when it came to election day. Those who are flushed with office, with new titles, who survived the recent spring cleaning and who now consider that their futures are secure, might dwell on the message of 1977 because that message was not confined solely to the Coalition. It can be applied just as impartially in a future election to another administration.
Chief among the reasons for the despatch of the 1977 administration was the electorate's perception that we had not tackled the employment question nor had we coped successfully with price increases. If things do not change for the better, an adverse conclusion on the performance of the Government will be applied to the present administration. The Minister of State sitting opposite will figure in the rogues' gallery if there is not a change for the better in 1980. He may say, and his Minister may also say, with all the eloquence at their command and with all the figures supplied by the Department that what happened was not their fault, but there is rough justice in the democratic system. If you happen to be in the hot seat on the day the figures are not good, you know where you will go.
We are democrats.
It is not so much that Fianna Fáil are democrats as that they cannot avoid facts. The facts in 1980 point to an inflation rate of up to 18 per cent. If the Minister of State is speaking in North County Dublin, or in any other part of this city, blaming the Arabs for the present situation, he will not convince anybody. Fianna Fáil claimed they could contain price increases and said the previous administration were unable to deal with them. They now have a mandate but are not dealing with this problem.
Fianna Fáil said they are coping with this situation as best they can and that prices are getting through the grid not by carelessness on their part but simply because they cannot be avoided. One of the flaws in that argument is that at a certain point they deliberately dismantled portion of the food subsidies and it is open to question what they intend to do about the remaining food subsidies.
If we might mention in this House a Deputy's name without doing him further damage or without embarrassing Fianna Fáil Deputies who may have dined off his political decease, the last Minister for Economic Planning and Development, at one stage, boasted that it was perfectly appropriate to get rid of food subsidies because they were only necessary at a time of high inflation which was a thing of the wicked National Coalition past.
I hope tomorrow we may see some reversal in the phasing out of food subsidies. I say that knowing we should cut public expenditure but believing that where such cuts hurt the lowest income groups in our society that is bad politics and should not be supported. That Minister explained the rationale in which he decided to dismantle the food subsidies but that rationale cannot hold at a time when the inflation rate is swinging between 16 and 18 per cent.
I do not deny that many of our difficulties in the price increase area come from outside the country. I agree that a period of expensive energy costs cannot be shrugged off and that we cannot pretend—as was pretended for political gain by Fianna Fáil Deputies when in Opposition—that what the Arabs did was of no account to us and that somehow Mighty Mouse Ireland could ignore what the Arabs did. We now have Ministers wandering all over the gulf. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is declaring that he is ad idem with the PLO in an effort to get oil a little cheaper than the going market rate. It is no longer possible to ignore the fact that what happens in the outside world affects us.
In this city we have a monoply in the supply of coal. I respect the present Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism. I regard him as one of the few people in the Cabinet who is serious about his work. He admits that he does not care for the coal monopoly situation in Dublin. I have a letter from him in which he says he would like to encourage alternative sources of supply. As we all know, there are people willing to take on the burden by attempting to introduce competition into the supply of coal in Dublin. Up to a few years ago we could have ignored this situation but it is now a very important matter because I do not believe the consumer is paying a competitive price for his bag of coal. We are talking about bags of coal bought by the old age pensioner of a family.
This is relevant to this motion. If we could do anything which would guarantee the consumer a more competitive price, we should do it. I hope the Minister who may think that this motion is purely a ritual will at least take a lesson from it and do everything in his power to ensure that prices are as competitive as possible. He should encourage the emergence in Dublin of competition in the supply of coal.
The Minister may ask why the Labour Party put down such a motion at six-monthly intervals. There would not be any point to this Parliament if we did not reflect the concern of ordinary people, if we were seen to be unheeding, to show no evidence of concern about the predicament of the people when it comes to daily price rises, which occur for very frivolous reasons in their eyes. If this motion reminds those in office that this is a serious issue, it will have served its purpose.
The National Prices Commission may be doing everything possible but I would like the position to be re-examined to allow a more public scrutiny of price applications. The public are under the impression that too much of the investigative work and that too many price applications are accepted in circles of confidentiality. We should let the public know why price increases are granted. It may be argued that for commercial reasons this may not be possible, but I do not believe that argument can be advanced in every case. Perhaps the Minister would re-examine whether it would be possible to have the proceedings of the National Prices Commission conducted in public. If a PAYE worker wants a wage increase he or she must go to the Labour Court and the proceedings are argued in public. Similarly it should be necessary for the firm seeking a price increase, for good or bad reasons, to argue a case in public and let the public be the jury.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 46; Níl, 66.
Tá
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Joan.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cosgrave, Michael J.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- D'Arcy, Michael J.
- Deasy, Martin A.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Donnellan, John F.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Horgan, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Ryan, John J.
- Spring, Dan.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
Níl
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Cogan, Barry.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Daly, Brendan.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Filgate, Eddie.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom.(Dublin South-Central).
- Fitzsimons, James N.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Fox, Christopher J.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Dennis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Kenneally, William.
- Killeen, Tim.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Moore, Seán.
- Morley, P. J.
- Murphy, Ciarán P.
- Nolan, Tom.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy C.
- O'Donoghue, Martin.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael J.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies B. Desmond and L'Estrange; Níil, Deputies Moore and Kenneally.
Question declared lost.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.45 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 27 February 1980.