I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, between lines 12 and 13 to insert:
"() (1) The Government shall establish a Prices Appeal Board the membership of which shall be five, the Chairman of which shall be a Judge of the High Court, and not more than two of whose members shall be civil servants.
(2) Any person or company aggrieved by any order of the Minister under this Bill shall have a right of appeal to this Board and the decision of the Board on this appeal shall be final.
(3) Appeals may be held in public at the request of either the Minister or the appellant."
This amendment proposes the setting up of a Prices Appeal Board so that there shall be some appeal from decisions of the Minister in regard to prices. This is a most necessary amendment because obviously there is a danger in the powers given to the Minister under the Bill. They are powers which are more sweeping than those he exercises at the moment in any other respect; powers as a result of which any firm or group of firms could be put out of business by decisions reducing or controlling their prices arbitrarily. One realises that in practice the Minister will certainly do nothing of the kind, that he will neither seek to put firms out of business nor take any action which will have this kind of effect intentionally.
Nevertheless, the problem of evaluating whether there should be a price increase, how much it should be, whether in a certain instance prices should be reduced, is a very difficult exercise in which there is room for error. A great deal of judgment is involved. It is not a simple question of looking at accounts and seeing how much the costs of a firm have gone up. Anybody who has any knowledge of price economics—either in practice, in a shop, or in theory, as a writer or student—will know how much is involved and how complex the business is.
It is difficult enough for an individual to fix his own prices at levels appropriate economically and socially, but for somebody outside the business to try to do it, with no direct knowledge to enable him to determine what the price should be, without having any direct responsibility for the economic consequences of his action, is something which I find disturbing and frightening. I myself, placed in that position, would have the gravest doubts in reaching a conclusion that could be found defensible and proper in a particular instance. I would have the greatest hesitation in telling any person or group of people that the price they are charging is a wrong price.
That such a power should be given to be exercised by a Minister without public inquiry or right of appeal is something that goes beyond the normal practices of a democratic society, something that seems a challenge to us to have established some appeal procedure. It is something that affects not alone the welfare of enterprise and its proprietors but something, because of the way in which the Minister and the Taoiseach have announced they will operate the Act, that would have a very great potential impact on the livelihood of wage earners and on the level of wages.
This does not appear to have been appreciated by the Labour Party and I am puzzled as to why this should be so. The Taoiseach, it I recall correctly what he said—we are at a disadvantage in not having the report of the Dáil debates—told the House the intention was that no price increases would be authorised where the cause of the increase was within the control of the management. This was elaborated, again if I recall it correctly—I should be happy if the Minister would interrupt me if I am wrong, though I do not believe I am—to the effect that, in fact, such increases would be allowed only after costs of materials had gone up. I can think of no clearer way of saying that wage increases will not be accepted as a reason for price increases.
If that is not what was intended the words are remarkably misleading. If that is what was intended we have here a most effective wage freeze measure because it is quite clear that except where a wage increase is sufficiently small or an increase in productivity is sufficiently rapid, a firm can approach a wage increase without a price increase only by having its profits reduced to an acceptable level. Otherwise, no wage increases can be granted by a firm in these conditions without endangering the firm's survival. Firms and managements are known to place a lot of store by their survival, to be reluctant to take any action which would put them out of business.
In such circumstances, the intention of the Minister and the Taoiseach appears to be to use the legislation in a manner that would necessitate some sort of appeals machinery not only to protect the firm and its management but also the worker—to prevent this being used as a wage freeze measure in a manner and at a time that might be inappropriate. It may be a good thing that this Bill should be used to discourage and prevent firms from increasing wages in certain circumstances. Perhaps, this has in it useful elements of an incomes policy of a sort but if that is the case it should be clearly stated.
If it is the case it is most essential that an appeals machinery should be established. In any case where factors that should have been taken into account were overlooked or where a decision is one which could not be legitimately covered earlier by the management of the firm or by the trade unions to protect the rights of members to claim increases in wages, an appeals machinery is necessary.
I am in the difficulty that I have had to move this amendment, for procedural reasons, before discussing the section. What I should have liked to have done was, first of all, to probe the Minister's mind on the section to establish to what extent the statements made in the Dáil reflect his thinking on the matter—whether my interpretation of those statements, which is the only one that the English language seems capable of, is correct. If I have misinterpreted the statements, part but only part of the grounds for an appeals board would, of course, disappear—if the Minister can say I have misquoted the words because I have not had the advantage of a proper text, or that the words did not mean what they appear to mean and that a claim for a price increase on the grounds that wages have risen will be acceptable and that this measure will not be used in cases of that kind. In such circumstances, from the point of view of the workers, there would not be the same urgent interest in an appeals board. However, there would be an indirect interest because if such decisions led to a firm's operations being disrupted, then the firm might be put out of business and the employees would suffer. That is taking an unduly naive view of the matter.
The Labour Party appear to have taken the view that the Bill is directed against management and that it would not have any impact on the workers. If the Minister or the Taoiseach appear to be doing what I interpret they are doing, this could have an impact of a serious character on the workers. The Minister may say that the powers will be exercised in a most cautious way and that care will be taken to ensure that there will be no mistakes. I do not have any doubts about his enthusiasm in this respect but mistakes can be made in this extremely complex business.
I am aware of a case where the Prices Advisory Body were considering some price increases, where the evidence from another Department, which was relevant to the case and would have helped to justify the increase, was not taken into account. Indeed, there was some disagreement between the two Departments on the matter. If two Government Departments could disagree in regard to a matter of this kind, we cannot leave it simply to one Department to decide the solution in this important matter, when so much depends on the management and the workers concerned. I do not see on what grounds a Prices Appeal Board can be resisted by the Minister. The right of appeal is an inherent part of any system of decision-making which may impinge seriously upon the welfare of the members of the community. It is all the more necessary where a decision is being taken by a Minister. not normally as the result of a public inquiry, but as the result of private study.
We do not know whether a firm will be called upon to give evidence, how the evidence will be given, whether the reasons which will lead the Minister to the decision to fix prices will be explained to them and whether there will be adequate opportunities of considering those reasons or of coming back again with further reasons. We have no idea how this decision will be made or when it will be taken because the procedure is not a public one.
I have proposed in the amendment that a Prices Appeal Board be established, that its membership shall be five and that a judge of the High Court shall be its Chairman, which is the normal procedure in these cases. I have suggested that not more than two of the members of this Appeal Board shall be civil servants. It seems desirable to me that the appeal machinery should be independent of the Civil Service and should be seen to operate independently of the Civil Service mechanism. I have left it open for these appeals to be held in public either at the request of the Minister or the appellant. Either side may wish it to be held in public so that justice can be seen to be done
As I have said, I am at some disadvantage in not being able to probe the Minister's intentions before putting down this amendment. The amendment is justified and is something the Minister should seriously consider. I cannot see that any harm will be done by it. I can see much harm being done, potentially, if we do not have such an appeal tribunal.