This is the third occasion upon which I have had the pleasure of hearing such a Bill introduced. It gives us a good example of how little change is brought about by switching Parties into office or out of office. It seems to be the regular practice of the Government to come before each House and say that it regrets very much having to continue this emergency legislation for the purpose of controlling certain matters, chiefly prices, supplies and so on. Indeed, Governments usually say, as the Minister has just said, that "considerable progress" has been made towards drafting permanent legislation, permanent legislation which will obviate the necessity for introducing this type of Bill in future. As a rule, the Opposition then gets up and expresses surprise that faster progress has not been made; they are very unhappy about the lack of progress, and so on, and they hope they can look forward to the time when we shall have full, permanent legislation to deal with these matters.
I remember in March, 1955, Senator Ó Buachalla speaking at column 851 of Volume 44 of the Official Report. He said then:—
"....I should like to say that the Bill gives us no satisfaction. We do not receive it even with mixed feelings. We think the Bill should not be brought in, good, bad or indifferent."
He goes on to say:—
"....I think we all agree that the powers which relate to price control are the ones of outstanding interest....It is clear from discussions in the Dáil that considerable progress——"
he used the phrase as it is used by the Minister to-day——
"——has been made in the preparation of that legislation and we on this side regret very much that, since the new Government came in, they did not push ahead with the proposed legislation and have it introduced and enacted by now."
Later on, at column 852, he said:—
"...I can say that the people who occupy the benches on the other side were particularly dissatisfied and particularly vocal in expressing their dissatisfaction with the continued introduction of this temporary measure."
Lewis Carroll's phrase, "Tweedledum and Tweedledee," is sometimes used in relation to the political Parties in this country, and I cannot help thinking it opposite when year after year we have this permanent "temporary" measure introduced, and always introduced in the same terms by a Minister —that he will do wonders in order never to have to introduce it again— and always opposed in unchanging terms by an Opposition—saying that they are "astonished" that more progress has not been made towards abolishing it altogether. What astonishes me is this apparently infinite capacity for astonishment, because I do not think there is anything else astonishing about it.
It is clear to me that this kind of emergency-powers legislation will go on for many years to come. I have no doubt we will get it next year from a Minister who will say that he has made "considerable progress" towards introducing permanent legislation, and that he hopes not to have to introduce it again, and that the Opposition will say that they are amazed that more progress has not been made, and so on.
Before I sit down, I should just like to say two things in relation to the specific matters with which the Supplies and Services Act is concerned —the regulation of prices and supplies. There are two official bodies dealing with these matters, the Prices Advisory Body and the Fair Trade Commission. I should like to say very emphatically that, despite its faults which I have mentioned in this House before, it would be very regrettable were the Prices Advisory Body to be abolished because, before we had the Prices Advisory Body, we had decisions as to the regulation of prices going on behind departmental doors, in the Department of Industry and Commerce Prices Section.
To my mind, the setting up of the Prices Advisory Body constituted a considerable step forward in the governmental attitude towards the regulation of prices, inasmuch as, after the setting up of that body, the justification for price-rises had to be stated right out in public, whereas previously it had been sufficient merely to convince departmental officials, or the Minister. I am not suggesting that it was necessarily any easier to convince them than to convince the Prices Advisory Body, but I am suggesting that from the point of view of public policy and public interest, it is far better that evidence as to any necessity for a price rise of any commodity should be given in public rather than in private, and I think it is fairer to the Department itself.
In fact, one of my criticisms of the Prices Advisory Body is that some of their sittings are held in private, and some of the evidence that is put before them about profits and prices and production costs is never made public. But, despite that fact, despite the fact that I think the Prices Advisory Body should be improved by being made even more public, I think it would be a retrograde step if it were to be abolished and if we were to go back to the methods previously applied, whereby price regulation was done by the Prices Section of the Department of Industry and Commerce. I make this point because the possibility was freely canvassed before the last Government came in that the present Minister for Industry and Commerce was contemplating abolishing the Prices Advisory Body and replacing it by the previous and considerably less satisfactory mechanism, the Prices Section of his own Department. For that reason I think it is necessary to make that point now.
The other point I want to make is that I think we have all become aware of the very direct effect upon the costs of many commodities, foodstuffs in particular, of the recommendations of the Fair Trade Commission. In particular I am thinking of their recommendations on pricing and supply of goods in the grocery trade. We have all become aware of a considerable drop in the price of many groceries, due, in my opinion, directly to the work of the Fair Trade Commission and its report. In that, I think we have an example of what can be done in practice to bring down prices. I should like, therefore, very strongly to urge upon the Minister the necessity for maintaining both the Prices Advisory Body and the Fair Trade Commission. The Fair Trade Commission having as its principal aim the insistence that in the trades which come under its survey real competition, price competition, shall obtain, it will be, in my opinion, always both immediately and ultimately to the benefit of the consumer.
