I am sure it would not. That is what we are aiming at stopping. The cost of living and the freeze Order were referred to by Senator Hawkins and other Senators. The freeze Order was mentioned first by the Tánaiste in a speech that has been more definitely distorted than any other speech which has been referred to in this House. Everywhere a manufacturer, an industrialist or a trader gets up to speak he quotes one phrase of the Tánaiste—that people were allowed to get away with a bundle of swag that astonished even themselves. That is picturesque language. It is not, I think, exaggerated. I do not suppose that I will be regarded as a standard in this matter, but I have used phrases at least as vigorous as this about the industrialists over the period to which the Tánaiste referred. This reference from the Tánaiste's speech occurs in the Official Reports of 6th December, 1950, at column 1809. He there spoke about what happened under the Fianna Fáil Government when wages were kept low, while
"... on the other hand, we had created a new hierarchy of wealthy people, arrogant in their wealth, arrogant in their opulence, challenging anybody who dared to question their right to make extortionate profits...."
He wound up with this, and this is a point that is never referred to because it cuts so close to the bone:
"... yes, and threatening with a cheque-book at election times because one dared to question the profits that these people were allowed to make under the Fianna Fáil Government."
He then asked:
"Will Deputy Kissane or anybody else in the Fianna Fáil Party tell me, in 1950, that it was for keeping prices low that a bunch of industrialists in this city issued an appeal for funds on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party at the last election?"
I ask that question, too, but I will not wait for an answer. Was it because prices and profits were kept low that a group of industrialists came out with a manifesto on behalf of one Party at the last election, as well as having promulgated it two or three elections before that? The Tánaiste asked:—
"Was that done in appreciation of the Government controlling prices or is it not more likely——"
and here is the context in which he used the phrase:—
"——that that was done in appreciation of the way in which the workers' standard of living was depressed while the wealthy elements of the community were allowed to get away with a bundle of swag that astonished even themselves?"
In the context in which the Tánaiste put that, I do not think the phrase can be questioned. Is it not notorious that people made money hand over fist during the war period and, in fact, were they not allowed to do it? I have calculations here which I got from the Revenue Commissioners setting out the difference in taxation of the excess corporation profits tax type imposed here and in England. I made calculations as to what special advantages people here got under our taxation in comparison with what they would have suffered if they had been operating under English taxation, and they show a considerable sum of millions. The excuse put forward at the time was that the money was given to these people to enable them to cushion themselves for what was called the difficult time of recovery when it was expected that materials would come on the market at cheaper rates and certain traders might be found with goods which they had purchased dear so that they had to get something in hand to cushion themselves against that situation. There was a little naiveté about that because one does not find a trader rushing to reduce his prices the morning after the cheap goods come on the shelves, although it is regarded as necessary for business, if the price goes up, that the imported goods have to begin to increase in price because, I am told, the minute they do, the trader thinks of replacement costs. Deputy Lemass took that as a principle in respect of his attempt to control prices. But there is no doubt that people got money, bundles of money, as the Tánaiste said.
The Tánaiste however went on to say:
"So far as the Government is concerned its attitude in relation to profits is this: it wants to ensure that the honest, decent man or woman, the honest trader and the honest firm, which invests capital in an enterprise, will be permitted to get a reasonable return on that capital. We want to permit the decent manufacturer, the good industrialist, the good provider of services, to obtain a reasonable return on his capital to assist him to pay decent wages and to observe decent conditions of employment."
That quotation is not so well known and I had better give the reference— column 1822 of the same Debates. Is that holding the balance equally: to say that certain people did get any amount of money—or is that going to be denied at this late date?—and then to say that, facing up to the present and looking to the future, the Government attitude is to ensure that the decent trader who invests capital will get a reasonable return on that capital?
The Tánaiste added, then, that an advisory prices body was to be set up and that that body would report to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He said that the main thing we wanted with regard to that body was publicity and that there were two reasons for requiring that publicity. One was that, if prices had to go up, the public would know why, and would have it brought home to them that, if prices were going up, there was a good reason for it. The second was to ensure that there would be no abuse arising from the new condition of scarcity approaching. One would think, listening to the comments made about the advisory body in connection with prices, that it is the first time that anybody ever thought of controlling prices or thought that profits were unreasonable. In the recesses of Government Departments, there is a White Paper of a Bill called the Emergency Powers (Unlawful Profits) Bill, 1945. Those who have not been at the heart of Government may not know it, but, when projects get to the stage of being produced as a White Paper, they are on the verge of being introduced to the Oireachtas. This Bill got so far and then stopped there.
I understand that the objection taken to the present prices tribunal, leaving out the circumstances of its birth which are expressed in these phrases of the Tánaiste which have been distorted, is that unfortunate traders may be asked to disclose confidential information to a body which is a public body and therefore, the suspicious trader says, will act in public. You get added to that as a sort of facet of the same argument that people may have to give away their business secrets. I waited to have these business secrets defined. I saw that one jam manufacturer talked about his recipes for making jam, as if anybody was going to give that away to the public. Another man made some reference to costing systems, suggesting that one firm might have a costing system different from that of another and that that might be disclosed.
The memorandum circulated to the Government at the time in connection with this Emergecy Powers (Unlawful Profits) Bill has certain points of interest. It first said:
"It is the aim of the methods of price control adopted by the Minister for Supplies to restrict profits within reasonable limits and thereby to keep down the level of prices."
I quote that only because it is so often said by Deputy Lemass, now that he is in opposition, that profits have very little to do with prices. In this case, he said the reverse, because the opening phrase in that memorandum says that the aim of the price control methods is to restrict profits within reasonable limits and thereby to keep down the level of prices. The memorandum goes on to say that the Minister had become convinced that there were a certain number of people who had failed to abide by their undertakings with regard to both prices and profits. He said that these might be few in number, but added:
"The importance of the issue cannot, however, be judged relative to the number of defaulters, since such default, if tolerated, would likely be claimed as unfair to other traders and would almost certainly lead to a general failure of the system of control."
He then asked that legislation should be passed and this I want to mark out: this was the project that was on foot in 1945: the Minister for Supplies in this memorandum demanded that legislation must give that Minister the fullest discretion in deciding what defaulting traders or firms deserve to have the penalties imposed, what traders or firms have erred unintentionally. The Minister was going to be the judge. If a group of people were before him—factually, one can gather this from this memorandum—he would be able to say: "There is a group of firms, A, B, C and X, Y, Z, and they have not carried out the undertakings given to me about restricting prices and therefore restricting profits." He said: "I want the right to choose as to which I will prosecute." He wanted the fullest discretion. Supposing he picked A, B and C, and lit on those, he then proposed that there should be an appeal tribunal, and that appeal tribunal was not to be a law court because he said in a later part of the memorandum, going to law courts and giving the right of appeal meant rendering nugatory the whole of these proposals of his to restrict prices or to get back unreasonable profits. He would allow an appeal tribunal which, under the legislation, was to be a body of three people appointed by the Government. Of the three members, one was to be a practising barrister of not less than ten years' standing and one was to be a person having knowledge and experience of accountancy. The third might be anybody not having even these limited qualifications. Certainly, there was to be no judge and no appeal to the courts. That tribunal when set up would hear any appeal that might be taken.
Again, I understand, the objection to the present body is that it is somewhat ephemeral and may disappear in four to five years, and in any event, it is not a Civil Service body because I was told in the Dáil that a civil servant is bound by oath or some undertaking not to reveal anything that comes under his notice. This appeal tribunal was to be appointed for a period not exceeding one year, as the Government think proper—there could hardly be anything more ephemeral than that— and it was to be composed of three persons, not necessarily judicial but one might be a legal person. The appeal tribunal, the memorandum says, would have full powers of investigation, including powers to obtain all relevant documents, accounts and information. The Minister asked that he should have power of a wide and drastic type for the collection of the debts due to him, including power to put a receiver in the business, to carry on the business as a going concern and he asked for indemnification against loss for the people put in to run the business.
That was a nice scheme. The Minister, without anybody's knowledge, would pick and choose the people whom he thought to be defaulters in connection with prices. Then he would assess the amount of money that they, by breaking their undertakings, had become unlawfully possessed of. He would demand those moneys from them and then, if those people liked to appeal, they would go before an appeal tribunal of this ephemeral type, with the three people on it appointed for not more than a year, who would have power to go into the business and look for all sorts of books and accounts and, finally, the Minister would take over the business, appoint a receiver and indemnify himself for the money that he was anxious to get. He said it was not intended that there should be any appeal to the ordinary courts against decisions by the Minister or the appeal court, as the case might be. "The delays which are unavoidable in such proceedings would greatly nullify the deterrent effect of the exceptional measures which it is proposed to take."
That was not proceeded with but, instead, the 1947 legislation made its appearance, at least as a Bill produced in Dáil Eireann. I do not know do people in these days of controversy about private traders' accounts being examined by a body which is not a Civil Service body and which might be somewhat ephemeral, realise what was in the Industrial Prices and Efficiency Bill. The Minister was to appoint a commission. There were to be three permanent members appointed for a period not exceeding five years—it might be anything—they could be replaced, discharged, taken off, and the Minister had really complete control to call for resignations and appoint new people, when he liked. They could investigate on their own initiative and must, at the request of the Minister, investigate the prices charged. Then there were to be Price Orders made.
"The Minister shall not make an Order under this Part in relation to a commodity or service unless (a) the commission have recommended it, or (b) the Minister is of opinion that
(i) unduly high prices are being or are likely to be charged for the commodity or service, or.
(ii) owing to the scarcity of supplies, there is a possibility that unduly high prices will be charged for the commodity or service."
The Minister was taking powers that he would make Price Orders in times of scarcity if he thought there was a possibility that unduly high prices would be charged, or if he felt undue prices, for some reason, were being charged or were likely to be charged.
In that connection, it was interesting to note that in Part IX it occurred that
"the Minister, the commission or the chairman may, from time to time, serve on a person who carries on the business of producing or selling a commodity or providing a service a notice requiring that person to furnish at such times as may be specified in the notice, such accounts and returns relating to the business as may be specified in the notice."
He was given further power to enter at all reasonable times to inspect the premises and to take notes and extracts from books, documents and records and, finally, to ask the people who were concerned in the business to furnish him with such notes, records or documents as he marked in the books.
If people are aggrieved at the moment because a Prices Tribunal consisting of an eminent judge, an accountant, an inspector of taxes and certain other people selected with various qualifications on the trade union side, is a body to whom information should not be given, they forget altogether what was proposed before. One would think that this was the first Prices Tribunal ever established in the country. It is a rather mild form of inquiry in comparison with what was proposed in the unlawful profits legislation and it is certainly not given as drastic powers as were proposed under the Industrial Prices and Efficiency Bill.
I want to say on that matter that I cannot understand these complaints about prices. Two Senators spoke here who a wakened echoes in my own mind of things I heard said before and that are worth saying again. Senator O'Farrell was one of them. Another Senator said much the same thing— that there was a time that it was proper to demand privacy in regard to business accounts, and the strictest privacy, and to complain of any intrusion. Those were the days when people operated on their own capital and when they produced goods in competition with the whole world and were able to withstand competition and yet satisfy the consuming public and were able to sell their goods. In those days it would have been an unwarrantable intrusion on people to say that you wanted to find out what they were making because, if they were able to sell against the world, able to produce attractive goods which got the consumers' demand and to make profits on those, they were entitled to them. They were operating on their own money and against the most adverse conditions of trade. But those days have gone. Not merely we here, but the world generally, are living in very highly protected areas. The greatest possible protection is given against competition, certainly against the old-time, ruthless, red-claw competition of the capitalist system. That is all gone and the system nowadays is—and the higher the protection goes, the more truthful, the more accurate, are the phrases I am using and their application—the higher the tariff wall, surely, the more it can be said that the consumer is thrown at the mercy of the industrialist operating behind the tariff wall.
If you get added to the tariff wall the system in which there are inside rings developed in a country so as to prevent internal competition, when the external competition is prevented by the tariff or the prohibition, I certainly think at that point we are getting nearer and nearer to the stage at which it can be legitimately said that it is the consumer who is providing the addition to the original capital that the manufacturer or trader has and that he is no longer entitled to the old profits that he could demand in those very far off and, I think, better days.
In any event, we have not gone to that stage or anything like it. We are merely asking that if a person here demands, in times of scarcity—what everybody is concerned about—an increase in prices, if a person demands the right to increase prices over a range of essential commodities particularly, he should make his case before the public and demonstrate to the public that his costs have risen and, on what the Tánaiste said, if he makes that case, he will get his increased price. We want to guard against unreasonable additions, which is the most we can guard against, and if we succeed in that, if we safeguard the public as a result of what has been done, we shall have done a good day's work both for the community and the trader. The trader will then no longer be under the cloud of suspicion that he is at present.
Senator O'Callaghan's remarks seem to be typical of the Fianna Fáil attitude towards any finance matter at the moment. He opened by saying that an increase of whatever number of millions he mentioned—it was an inaccurate number of millions but that does not matter—an increase of blank millions was a bad day's news for the public. Then, having made what I might call his formal genuflections to the new idol of economy that Fianna Fáil have erected for themselves, he promptly turned his back on economies and he went on to say that the price offered for timber in this country is very low.
He wanted more money for butter, for milk, for wheat growers and beet growers, and he thought that something should be done about the price of eggs. If you have that type of programme outlined by a Senator who does not put his finger on a penny piece of the alleged extravagances, but simply tells the people that they have to pay millions more and then proceeds to say that various types of producers should get more by way of subsidy, one cannot expect to take his suggestions of economy seriously. I am glad he drew attention to the forestry matter. I was rather shocked when he said that there was an Order made in the year 1949, which meant that owners of timber grown in this country have to sell it at something less than half the price that could be got for foreign timber. It came, as I say, as a shock to me because I never had heard of such an Order being made in 1949. I had some inquiries made and I have discovered that this Order was really made in 1941. Why it was then made I do not know; may be Senator Hawkins could throw some light on it, but it is not as comprehensive as Senator O'Callaghan would have us believe. It applies only to certain timber. Standing timber is without a controlled price and firewood is without a controlled price. As a matter of fact, there is something of a racket developing there, and I am glad that the Senator called attention to the Order. I should like to know what change the Senator would recommend in that regard. If that Order is removed, Irish timber goes up in price and then we may find that Swedish timber is able to beat Irish timber on the home market. The next demand probably would be for a tariff on Swedish timber to keep the Swedish timber out. If Swedish timber is carrying a greater price at present than Irish timber, the Irish stuff must be shockingly bad if it cannot sell at a price which the Senator has stated is less than half the price of the Swedish timber. The Senator has alleged that Swedish timber is fetching twice what the Irish stuff is being sold for and yet the Swedish stuff, according to him, is able to beat Irish timber on the home market.
Senator Mrs. Concannon made a despairing appeal that I should go through the Estimates and try to lop off bits here and there. I took it for granted that, having said that, she had nothing else to offer in the way of contribution, but she went on to refer to the £25,000 provided for the Irish News Agency. Having made her little appeal that something should be done to go through the Estimates to lop off items here and there—incidentally she did not trust me or give me credit for having done that to the best of my endeavour already—she went on to make a demand for Galway harbour, money for more schools and an appeal for the maintenance of the two enormous institutions that already exist on the health side in Galway. I have already dealt with Galway harbour. So far as schools are concerned, more schools have been built in the last year or year and a half than were built in the country for many years before. Certainly more money was provided for that purpose, and if Galway is not getting its share, somebody is lacking in vigilance in the Galway direction.
Senator Loughman added his effort in the way of calling for extra expenditure. He thought that we should subsidise coal inasmuch as coal has increased so much in price recently. The Senator—I failed to take him seriously when I heard him make the statement —announced that Senator Douglas had recently praised the Industrial Prices and Efficiency Bill. I read him, according to the report of his speech in the newspapers, unless my memory is shockingly bad, as stating that he thought that it was the most undesirable intervention by a Government into business that had ever been projected in this State. If the Senator regards that as praise, one can only regard it as typical of the distortions that membership of Fianna Fáil can bring one to.
Senator O'Reilly suggested in connection with turf production that better results might be obtained through the private producer than through the operations of the county councils. That I think is a matter that can be argued, taking into account the circumstances of each particular county.
Senator Summerfield seemed to be very excited about what he termed the staggering size of the bill but all he could suggest was that we might overhaul Government expenditure. He had the suggestion that one often hears made nowadays, that we should get some business experts to look into the various Departments. I do not want to give away any secrets but I think I can say that there has been a group of business experts looking into certain Departments. I do not want to be disrespectful to them in any way, but I think I am right in saying that the amount they are charging for their services, outweights any economies they have been able so far to make. That is the result of bringing in business experts. I wish we could bring their good recommendations to firms like Senator Summerfield's to see if they could get any better results there, and then we might have another look at them.
With regard to the suggested change in the system of motor taxation, I would say that there is a mistaken impression, to which Senator McGee referred, that Road Fund moneys are being diverted from the particular purpose for which they were intended, namely, the maintenance of the roads. Those who spoke in that way seem to forget two things. One is that the produce of the petrol tax never went into the Road Fund. The Road Fund is fed by what is called the road tax. The road tax was increased in 1947 and the then Minister for Finance, in bringing in the increase in the road tax, said that he was going to appropriate the proceeds of the road tax towards the payment of subsidies. He estimated that to the end of the year, it would cost a couple of hundred thousand pounds to do that. For the couple of years that I have been in office I have been taking £300,000 from the Road Fund and in doing that I am not taking the full amount to which I am entitled because if I appropriate the full amount of the increased tax, I should be getting £500,000 towards the Central Government expenditure instead of the £300,000 which I have been getting and which I propose to take in future.
The motor tax system is a different matter and that is being examined at the moment. I believe the aim is to get the same revenue but to adjust the tax so that the incidence would be different on different types of cars. I believe there is this undesirable feature, that part of the revenue would have to be derived from an increased tax on petrol. I know very well what would happen if I were to come in here to suggest that I should be allowed to get an increased revenue from petrol to compensate for the adjustment in the other tax. I probably would be shouted down and everybody would forget the relaxation there had been on the other side.
Senator Quirke suggested that we should try to provides more storage for petrol and various types of oil. We were not left much in the way of storage but we have been trying to get increased storage. It is not an easy task as the companies interested in delivering supplies here are not interested in storage in that way. The provision of storage that would hold any appreciable amount would be very expensive, and unless the companies could be induced themselves to bear the burden of the costs over a number of years it would mean duite a significant addition to the cost of oil fuel in the country.
One of the things which I could never understand in that connection was, why a decision was ever taken in this country to get rid of the electric trams and to throw us, more and more, in the face of a coming emergency, on imported oils of different types. We, at least, had the motive power provided out of our own resources, as long as the trams were allowed to run on the streets of Dublin, and yet that decision was taken. That decision was so far advanced that we could not stop it.
Senator Quirke referred to the controversial matter of the Locke case, and to the fact that no costs were paid. As long as I am Minister for Finance no costs will be paid. In that I am going on precedent. Many people have been brought before the courts of this country, the criminal and other courts of an inquiry type. Only in one case, and that was not an example which anyone would care to hold up as one to be followed, were costs ever paid, and even then they were the subject of a sort of wangle to get them arranged in the way the last Government wanted them. People have, from time to time, been brought before the courts and subjected to a vast amount of annoying publicity and very heavy expense, and even when a jury has completely and entirely acquitted them they have been left to their own resources.
The first of an exceptional type of case that my mind goes back to, outside that of the ordinary criminal case, was one which occurred in 1932 or 1933. Two servants of this State were brought before the courts of the country for breaches of the Official Secrets Act. One was a member of the Army who died recently, and the other a member of the detective force. The case dragged on for one and a half days, and, at the end of the one and a half days, the judge hearing the case said that the thing was fantastic, and he ordered the case to be withdrawn from the jury. He would not let the jury hear it. He then made a statement which the people in court said they would carry to the authorities to the effect that these people had been subjected to very heavy expense for no reason whatever that he could see, and he hoped that their expenses would be paid. He did not add what, I think, was the feeling of most people, that these people would have been restored to their former occupations. Their costs were never paid, and that case stands as an evil example.
I think I answered Senator Meighan in the matter of the private as against the county council employee. I think there is something there to be discussed, but it is a matter which I would prefer if the Senator would discuss it with someone rather than myself.
