Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Dec 1949

Vol. 37 No. 6

Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1946 (Continuance) Bill, 1949—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a second time".

The purpose of this Bill is to continue for another year the powers conferred on the Government by the Supplies and Services Act, 1946. The main purposes for which it is considered necessary to retain the powers for another year are:—

Rationing of foodstuffs; rationing of petrol; price control; control of building; control of export of certain articles, and control of foreign exchange.

General consumer rationing applies only to butter, tea, sugar, bread and flour. The ration of butter was increased in April last to 8 ozs. per head per week. Stocks of creamery butter in cold storage are higher than last year, and no difficulty is anticipated in maintaining the ration at the present level. In the case of tea, sugar, flour and bread, rationing was first imposed on account of scarcity. It is true that scarcity no longer obtains, but it is necessary to maintain rationing in order to restrict the burden which falls on the Exchequer in respect of payment of subsidies. The price of these commodities has increased greatly as compared with pre-war. If these increases were passed in full to the consumer they would impose a very heavy burden on the poorer sections of the community.

In order to relieve consumers of the full import of these increases heavy subsidies are paid from the Exchequer, which, in the current financial year, will amount to from £9,000,000 to £10,000,000. The abolition of rationing would involve either the removal of subsidies or their extension to cover the full consumption, including non-domestic use. The removal of subsidies would mean an immediate and big increase in the cost of these articles of food. The extension of subsidies to cover full consumption would involve a very substantial increase in expenditure from State funds, and the Government does not consider that extra taxes should be imposed on the taxpayer in order to subsidise consumption above the ration levels for domestic consumers. The rations have been fixed on a generous basis which should be adequate for the normal consumer. Supplies of flour, tea and sugar have, however, been made available outside the rations at special prices for those who wish to purchase them.

Supplies of petrol are also adequate, but it has been considered undesirable to abolish rationing as yet in view of the fact that dollar expenditure must be incurred in obtaining our requirements. In view of the uncertainties of the dollar exchange position, the rationing is being retained as a precautionary measure though it is not anticipated that the flow of supplies throughout the year 1950 will be at a lower level than it was during 1949. The control has been greatly relaxed and its application at present causes little inconvenience to consumers. As from the 1st January next a further simplification in the ration system will take effect. Instead of quarterly books of petrol coupons, books of coupons will be available which will contain coupons for each of the four quarters of the year. This new system will reduce administrative expenses, and, at the same time, facilitate consumers.

At the outbreak of war in 1939, it was considered desirable by the previous Administration to exercise control over prices under the conditions of emergency by the powers conferred under the Emergency Powers Act rather than by the use of the machinery set up under the Control of Prices Act of 1937. These special powers of controlling prices by Order and arrangement continue to be exercised under the Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act, and it is necessary that they should so continue to be exercised. In the case of many goods the supply position has so substantially improved that it is either back to normal or almost back to that stage, but there are many essential goods which still continue to be scarce and the prices of which would tend to rise rapidly because of the scarcity if strict control were not applied. Controls by Order and arrangement under special powers are much more appropriate to cope with the ever-changing conditions which apply to these scarce goods. Consequently, the continuance of the special powers for a further period in respect of price control is necessary. The question as to whether a permanent form of price control should be introduced and as to what form such control should take is being considered, and proposals will be submitted to the Oireachtas when the Government, in the light of experience, consider that it would be advisable to alter the methods now being applied.

Senators will be aware of the need for continuing foreign exchange control. Under present international conditions our currency is not freely convertible into other currencies, and there is no likelihood that this state of affairs will end for some time to come. This applies particularly to the hard currency areas. It is, accordingly necessary to control issues of foreign exchange so as to ensure that our limited resources are used to the best advantage and for the general good of the community. To function effectively, exchange control must be comprehensive. Any gaps or weaknesses in the control are quickly discovered and loss or misuse of foreign exchange occurs which could have been used for the public good. It is probable that permanent legislation to control foreign exchange will be necessary to replace the temporary powers derived from the Supplies and Services Act of 1946. The preparation of such legislation, however, is very complicated and it has not yet reached such a stage that it can be introduced into the Oireachtas. Pending the enactment of permanent legislation, the control must still be operated, and the Government and the Minister for Finance must have power to amend the existing Orders so as to deal with changes in the situation as they arise.

It is still necessary to retain the power to control exports. This control has been relaxed to a considerable extent during the past year according as the supply position of different commodities improved. It is not possible, however, completely to abandon the control, which is a type of control in which a high degree of flexibility is necessary. Circumstances can arise in which shortages of certain articles may occur, and without the power to control exports there would be a danger that the country would be denuded of these articles. Even where goods are controlled, export may be permitted under licence. Senators will appreciate, however, that if export controls were abolished entirely there would be a risk of shortages at home.

Control of building must also be maintained for some time at least. Generally speaking, building materials are in ample supply, but supplies of certain important items, such as cement, are insufficient to meet all demands. There is no control over the distribution of these articles, but the building control has the effect, indirectly, of ensuring supplies for essential projects. The principal obstacle in building is the shortage of skilled labour. Without control of building there is a likelihood that skilled labour would be diverted to non-essential work and that essential work, such as the building of houses for local authorities, would be held up. The Control of Building Order was modified during the year by the removal of local authority and subsidy houses from the scope of the control. All other types of building which exceed a total cost of £500 or require the use of material costing £250 or more, still require to be licensed. The granting of licences is regulated so as to ensure that essential building gets priority.

While it is necessary to seek the retention of the powers conferred by the Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1946, the Government realises that these controls impose inconvenience on the public and the business world, and has no desire to maintain these powers for any longer period than is absolutely necessary. Since 1946, and particularly during the last 12 months, it has been found possible to discontinue many emergency controls. It is the policy of the Government to abandon other emergency controls as soon as conditions warrant such action. The operation of each control is examined periodically with a view to seeing whether it can be abandoned, or, if not, whether it can be relaxed. As a result of such reviews it has been found possible in the last 12 months to abolish the rationing of soap and margarine; non-subsidised flour of 75 per cent. extraction has been made available, and flour and bread confectionery made from this flour removed from rationing; control of the distribution of kerosene and fuel oil was abolished; the rationing of petrol was relaxed to a very large extent; the Order restricting the use of bread and flour with meals in restaurants was revoked; restrictions on a number of other commodities were also revoked or modified; numerous classes of goods were removed from export licensing control, and the number of articles now subject to this control is less than half the number when supplies difficulties were at their worst.

As I have already mentioned, non-subsidised tea and sugar were made available for sale over and above the ration. For a long number of years no new entrants to the retail tea and sugar trade were admitted, but it was found possible during the year to modify the Order so as to permit new entrants to obtain licences. It is also possible for new wholesalers in these commodities to obtain licences.

It is also proposed to remove the requirement for a licence to import timber as from the 31st March next. Price Orders in respect of a number of commodities, including such articles as oatmeal, canned fish, rice, maize meal, paper, footwear and timber were revoked as it was considered that these articles were in sufficient supply to prevent the charging of excessive prices.

The list of Orders made under the Emergency Powers Acts and under the Supplies and Services Act has been brought up to date, and will shortly be on sale to the public at the Stationery Office. Although a large number of Orders has been revoked, the list is too long for me to read to the House. The Orders deal with a variety of matters too complicated to mention now, but if Senators have any specific questions to ask I shall give them the information they require when replying.

We must, at the outset, express regret that four years after the termination of European hostilities, and after what we thought would be a reasonable time for emergency conditions to have passed, we are here to-night considering a Bill to prolong for another year many of the controls that were essential, and some of them not even in operation, during the most intense period of the last European war. The Parliamentary Secretary in outlining the Bill before us gave, as its main purpose, the continuation of petrol rationing, bread, butter and tea rationing, and controls of various kinds for dealing with prices and other matters. If we examine the first question, that of petrol rationing, I would suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary has not made a case before the House for a continuation of the petrol rationing.

We have been informed that from the 1st of January there will be made available to each vehicle owner in the State a supply of petrol coupons, not for three months, four months, or a month as was the procedure, but for a period of 12 months. We know that there is, and can be made available, a sufficient supply of petrol to supply the country's whole requirements. The Parliamentary Secretary has stated that the ration is being maintained because of the dollar shortage, and that if the ration were taken off it would mean going into further debt. But, there is no vehicle, at the present time, in this State held up for lack of supply. The Minister for Finance stated quite recently that a very small portion of our total petrol supply came from the dollar area. If it is the position that only a very small portion of our supply comes from the dollar area, then it should be quite possible to arrange that we should get our whole supply from the area from which we get the greater part. We had during the summer season a special staff engaged in the Department of Industry and Commerce, that deals with the rationing of petrol, making an additional allowance of petrol available to those who came here as tourists. We have had petrol being made available for every purpose.

What does he mean by additional staff? Do you mean the staff there before has been added to?

Part of the staff was engaged in making available or sending out coupons to those people who came here, to give them an additional petrol supply.

Part of the existing staff?

The question is: Is this organisation going to be maintained throughout the coming 12 months? We have, according to the Parliamentary Secretary's statement, coupons being sent out in the first week in January to each holder of a licensed vehicle in this State, a complete 12 months' supply of coupons. Is the same staff going to be maintained as would be maintained if it were on a three months, four months or monthly basis? What exactly will be the saving to the State in changing over from the former procedure of making available coupons to registered vehicle owners every three months, or every month, to a 12 months' period? Will that 12 months' supply be made available from the day on which the applicant pays his motor taxation or will it be made available just to those people who are registered owners in the month of January? If we pass on from the question of petrol, we come to what is more important, the question of the continued rationing of bread. We must bear in mind that, during the years of the war, we had no bread rationing in this country. The bread ration was only introduced when the European war terminated. We have it still in operation and, strange to say, we are the only nation in Europe to-day, I think, that has a bread ration. The British and the other European nations engaged in that great struggle have found it possible to discontinue the bread ration. It is true that there is made available for those people, who are in a position to purchase and pay the price, bread of another type and at another price, but we still have the ration.

I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary on this question of flour and bread prices just one or two questions. It is not true to say that we have a two-priced flour. We have the usual rationed flour being sold to the ordinary consumer on a ration basis at 3/- per stone. That is one price. We have white flour being sold to these people who are in a position to buy it at 7/- per stone, and we have being sold to the biscuit manufacturers —I am not sure whether it is being sold to any other type of manufacturer— flour at 6/- per stone. That is three price flour. The argument put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary for introducing what the Government call two-price flour was that they were extracting from these people who are in a position to pay part of the subsidy necessary to make available to the rank and file of our people rationed flour at the controlled price.

I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary and the House that not alone is the person who purchases off-ration flour at 7/- per stone paying part of the taxation being raised, some of which goes to pay for the subsidies on flour, butter and other commodities, but that a new tax is being levied on him, which does not come within the scope of the powers given to the previous Government. In September, 1939, there were given to the then Government very wide powers, powers which, one might say, were powers, over the whole activity of the nation, in face of the difficulties which then threatened. There were two matters which Parliament held to itself—under no Order could the Government enforce conscription on the people, and under no Order could the Government enforce additional taxation. That, however, is exactly what we are doing under this system which sets up two-price commodities for our people.

The case I have made in relation to bread can be made even more strongly in relation to butter. We have in this respect two prices also—one, the controlled price of 2/8 per lb. for the rationed commodity and a price of 3/4 per lb. for other sections of the people. How much of the money raised from the amount of butter sold at 3/4 per lb. goes towards the payment of the subsidy on butter? The Parliamentary Secretary has stated that the ration of butter has been increased. When is it proposed to take butter completely off the ration? Are we never to look forward to the day when creamery will be completely off the ration? We have heard very much in recent months about increased production, increased milk and butter production and an increase in the number of cattle. If there is this increase, what do we propose to do with the butter? Is it the position that the Government is not prepared to make additional money available to subsidise the butter being sold at a particular price or that the Government are not prepared to take the bold step of completely abolishing subsidies and letting such articles as bread, butter and so on find their own levels? By making more of these commodities available, you would be setting up a much more effective price control system.

The Parliamentary Secretary informed us that one of the main purposes of this Bill was to give the Government power to maintain control over the distribution of tea. He will agree that we can find sufficient tea to take tea completely off the ration. In this respect again, we have two prices. We have the rationed commodity at 2/4 or 2/8 a lb. and off-ration tea at 5/6 per lb. The Parliamentary Secretary did not give this or the other House any indication what the price would be if tea were completely derationed and desubsidised, and what quantity of tea is being purchased at the moment at 5/6 per lb., and what it takes to supply the ration for our people as a whole at the subsidised price. I put it to him that, if we could revert to the system of trade which existed prior to the war, a system under which there was not one price for tea but three or four prices, it would be much better for the people, and if the Government made up their mind to leave this business in the hands of those in whose hands it was before the war, we would be in a much better position than we are in to-day. When is it expected that tea will be taken completely off the ration? Are we to take it that the Government have definitely made up their mind that they will not make available the money essential, if these commodities were taken off the ration, or not prepared to abolish the subsidies and let these commodities find their own price?

The Parliamentary Secretary informed us that quite a number of controls have been discontinued. That is true, but the extraordinary thing is that, over the past 12 or 18 months, every announcement made by the Government, that as from such and such a date control would be discontinued in respect of a particular commodity, was followed by an announcement that the price was about to go up.

Hear, hear— and you still want more controls off.

The Senator says: "Hear, hear". It is because the Minister was not prepared to accept responsibility that that position was brought about. Surely the House must agree that, before these statements were issued that control would be removed from a certain article as from such a date, there must have been an examination into the matter. The Minister must have been convinced of one of two things: that the controlled price as fixed originally was now too high and that by taking off control the public in general would benefit as a result of lowering of price, or, having examined the matter, that prices must be increased. In quite a number of cases it has happened when the announcement was made that from such a date bacon, oatenmeal, boots or something else were being decontrolled that the following week the other announcement is made. Very few people in this House would have any knowledge of it, but the moment the announcement was made that whiskey would no longer be controlled it was increased by 2d. or 3d. a glass.

Mr. Hayes

Not the next day.

Does the Senator want it controlled or not controlled?

I want the Minister to live up to his responsibilities. If after examination it is found that it is essential to increase a price let him do it by Order and not go the roundabout way of first taking off control and then letting the price go up without accepting responsibility.

I have here a long list of goods the price of which went up because it was sanctioned and there are other cases where they were decontrolled and went down.

The Parliamentary Secretary has also informed us that it is essential to maintain the Act in order to control building. I do not think we should go into the question of building on a Bill of this kind, but what real control of building have we? We had many complaints a few years ago of the licensing system then in operation. We heard of the many luxurious buildings that were being erected at the expense of ordinary housing schemes. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that whatever statements were made when an examination was carried out it was found that a very small percentage of the total number of buildings could be classified as other than ordinary dwellings. We in this House appointed a Committee some time ago to go into the question and act as watchdogs on our behalf on the various Orders that were made. A very close examination was carried out and on many occasions we found that some extraordinary things were happening.

On very few occasions.

Members, I am sure, will know of that from the reports which were laid on the Table of the House.

The Parliamentary Secretary also states that it is necessary to continue the Act in order to continue price control. Many complaints have been made from time to time here and in the other House about the system. Some people said that it was not active or efficient enough, but yet no attempt has been made during the past 18 or 19 months to set up more effective or efficient machinery than was in existence when the present Government came into operation. Therefore, we must take it that they are quite satisfied that this matter was given active attention from day to day even during the years of the war. The question which arises on this Bill is whether in the view of the House it should be continued for 12 months. The Parliamentary Secretary has not so far made a case, but I quite realise that in some of the matters to which he referred the Government should have power to exercise the necessary control. It should not, however, be done by a Bill of this kind. We should have legislation dealing with each item instead of the Parliamentary Secretary saying that this Bill is needed because it is necessary to control petrol, food supplies or some other commodity. I would like him in his reply to give us some more information, particularly as to when we might expect the end of the rationing of essential commodities for our people.

I, for one, do not appreciate or want Government controls if they can possibly be avoided, but I suggest that we are still in a state of emergency as far as supplies and prices are concerned. I do notice one particularly objectionable phenomenon which was mentioned by Senator Hawkins, that is, that almost invariably the removal of control means an increase in price. Actually, some people would be amazed if you told them there was any control of prices at all at the present time. If I go into a shop to buy a shirt or a suit I feel absolutely at the mercy of the person who sells it, and there is no indication of the price I should pay.

They are still controlled, except shoes.

Allegedly, they are still controlled, but there is nothing on a piece of tweed to show what you should pay for it. The general tendency has been upward and one feels that no matter what Government is in power, those who have things to sell can make a convincing case to the price controller because there is no representative of the consumer. The civil servants are supposed to be the people who will safeguard their interests, but they, who constantly meet the same type of person, are rather likely to fall for the blandishment of those people. They listen to the arguments of one side and, with the best intentions in the world, they are unable to find the necessary arguments which are available to rebut the argument for higher prices.

I cannot understand Senator Hawkins' argument because he admits that the removal of control means an increase in prices. There are numerous examples of that. Whiskey the other day was the latest example, but still he wants them removed. My contention is that far more petrol is used in this country than this country can possibly afford. In fact, if very much more of it is used no one will be able to drive a car through Dublin City or district at all. Already it is tied up in such a knot of confusion that it is an impossibility for a person to drive in the rush hours in the city and one could walk considerably faster. But to suggest that we should spend more of the meagre dollars at our disposal in order to get in more petrol is absolutely preposterous. I was amazed to hear the suggestion that the present rations of tea, bread and sugar were insufficient for any average person. I have never met anybody to complain that they are not sufficient. Admittedly, there is always the greedy, abnormal type of person. For that type of person there is always the alternative of buying these rationed commodities without asking the State to subsidise them, over and above the average man's allowance.

I think it would be entirely unjustifiable to impose taxation to enable subsidised flour to be fed to pigs or calves or used for other purposes that we could not afford at the present time. I and my family use tea, bread and sugar and every member of our family is able to get on quite comfortably on the present ration and we look on ourselves as an average family. If we want to get more, I do not see any grievance in having to pay the full unsubsidised prices, and I do not see why additional taxation should be imposed, just because I am greedy or wasteful, and require more rationed goods than my rightful share.

Senator Hawkins said he wanted to know if the Government was prepared to spend money to provide unlimited tea supplies. Whose money? The Government has no money except ours, and I strongly object to the Government being asked to tax us to provide money to satisfy the abnormal appetites of some people for tea. I admit the right to an abnormal appetite, but I do not admit the right of anyone to tax me so that some people may indulge their abnormal appetites. For those reasons, I suggest that the Bill to carry on controls should be passed. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary's Department should be slow to remove controls until there is an assurance that there will be no greater impositions on the public.

We know what happened before devaluation. We know that the removal of controls resulted in increases in prices and that the result in the shiftings about which accompanied it had serious effects on the welfare of the community. We are told by those who advocate the removal of the controls that we have passed from a seller's to a buyer's market. That may be all right so far as supplies are concerned, but it is not a buyers market in the matter of price, because prices are still weighing heavily on many sections of the community, particularly on the clerical and other sections of our population whose salaries have not been increased on anything like the same scale as those of the manual workers. These clerical classes have had nothing like a 75 per cent. increase in their salaries to keep pace with the cost of living. They are carrying a fearful burden, and it is not always popular to uphold their cause.

I am talking of people who might live two lifetimes and have only 1,000 to one chance of getting a council house, with the result that they have to burden themselves with millstones of debt around their necks to buy houses on the instalment system and to pay high rates of interest. Yet, they are an extremely important section of the community, but it is hard to wring the withers of any audience on their behalf. You have them in the case of the teachers and in the lower clerical grades, people doing immense services in every industry throughout the country, who have not secured a proper appreciation of their worth and who have had appalling tragedies imposed on them by the war. Every little increase, no matter how small, in the prices they have to pay, adds greater weight to the burden they have to carry, a burden for which they have not been able to make provision. Already, the purchasing power of their salaries is far below that of pre-war days when, even then, it was inadequate to allow them to maintain a decent existence.

Therefore, I favour maintenance of controls, where they are of any use, until such time as those who are prepared to sell are prepared to take the same rate of profit as in pre-war days. During the war these people extracted phenomenal profits and they are not prepared to accept anything less now although the war is over.

I propose to confine my remarks to that mysterious fluid known as petrol. I think it is the most highly taxed, debased and bedevilled article of commerce still subjected to rationing. I appreciate the reasons given by the Parliamentary Secretary for maintaining rationing. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that rationing is being maintained as a precautionary measure to preserve the machinery. I admit his claim that rationing is now on a precautionary basis. My criticisms now are directed not only to the high price of petrol but to the ill-treatment to which it is subjected when it reaches our shores. It arrives here at about 9d. per gallon, but some mysterious substance of an inferior quality appears to be injected into it then, so that as a result cars of many makes will not work properly with it. For instance, my own car will not work properly although ordinarily it is a well-behaved car. It has acquired a habit of stalling its engine every time I stop at a red light. This is not a regular phenomenon, and many experts who deal with carburettors tell me that it is quite common to get a fill of good petrol every two or three weeks. It has happened to me that when I got a new fill of petrol the car behaved perfectly, and indeed it has behaved so since I got the last fill. If we must pay heavy taxation on our petrol, and continue rationing, could I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to use his influence with the interests concerned to see we really get petrol and not a substitute for petrol—an adulterated and debased substitute that is not even competently adulterated? It is about the inferior quality I wish to protest rather than the system of rationing.

Debate adjourned.
The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, December 15th, 1949.
Top
Share