Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 11 Nov 1970

Vol. 249 No. 7

Prices and Incomes (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1970: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Yesterday I expressed the view on behalf of the Labour Party that the only reasonable reaction we could have towards this legislation was to regard it as a classic piece of non-Government, a rather blatant example of the non-management of the economy and a clear illustration of the non-influence of the Government on the course of economic affairs since 1964. I pointed out the general inconsistency of the Minister for Finance in his attempted introduction of these measures particularly in regard to the 12th round second phase agreements and his withdrawal and double shuffle on that aspect of the matter, and the other unfortunate aspect of the effects his measures will have on the future of industrial relations.

I also pointed out that he had set back the prospect of any rational discussion on an incomes policy at least ten years. Further discussion can only be brought about by, one might almost say, the necessity for a general election. I also stressed that, as an individual Member of the House, I have never had any particular hostility towards either the long-term or short-term aims of an incomes policy itself. The long term aims of an incomes policy, which must be favoured by any party claiming to describe themselves as a socialist party, must be to raise the general level of real wages, to increase the share of wage and salary earners in the national income and measures within the context of the general framework of an incomes policy would promote by and large a greater degree of internal justice in relative pay.

These are realistic and sensible proposals to which any trade unionist or member of the Labour Party would subscribe. I am quite sure few in the trade union movement would quarrel with these aims. We find it impossible, however, to accept that the legislation before the House advances in any way these long-term aims for the future of an incomes policy. Even in the short-term it cannot be held that this legislation will act as a palliative and assist in maintaining export competitiveness by maintaining stability in pay levels and price rises.

The whole emphasis is on holding down pay in the form of wages and salaries. The stringency of the statutory controls means that what you have here is wage and salary control and nothing at all bearing the slightest resemblance to price and income control. A comparison between the legislation introduced in Britain and that introduced here shows the amazing difference in approach. This Bill is full of dangerous tendencies and for that reason alone it must be strenuously rejected.

There are clever decoys—that is how I describe them—in regard to prices, rents, dividends and profits. The provisions dealing with these are nothing more than decoys. The Bill is, in effect, a measure designed to control wages and salaries. It is not really designed to control prices, profits, dividends and rents. The Minister cannot hope to get away with public credibility on that aspect of the Bill. It is vital that the Government should maintain normal working relationships with the trade union movement but the result of this Bill will be the creation of a genuine mistrust. There is a feeling in the trade union movement, to put it bluntly, that the Government are a terrible shower of messers.

The Minister has tried to argue that the only choice lies between statutory control and a free-for-all type of general bargaining. I think the Minister is fomenting confrontation, perhaps inadvertently, perhaps stupidly. I want to get rid of the proposition once and for all that we have ever had a free-for-all bargaining situation. Neither the trade union movement nor anybody else wants a free-for-all. That has been abundantly clear since the maintenance workers dispute. We have never had a free-for-all. The employers' attitude has always been one of resistance to all claims, irrespective of size. Some resistance may be legitimate. Some resistance may be unduly harsh.

The introduction of this measure is not a case of the other side of the coin. We have never had a free-for-all from the point of view of wage increases. I suggest that, because of its general incompetence, the Cabinet is not capable of coming to any conclusion in terms of industrial relations. I do not accept the Minister's argument with regard to the alternative. What has been done in this Bill is a clear example of a Cabinet, to paraphrase Father Feargal O'Connor, making up policy as it goes along. There is no real evidence of any policy in regard to prices, rents, dividends and so on. There is nothing really from the point of view of overall economic management.

This Bill is a very shoddy piece of legislation. Such is the general apathy and, indeed, contempt on the part of most people now for politicians generally that the Government has not only no longer the capacity to sell this piece of legislation but it has not even the capacity to sell a tin of dog food and that incapacity arises out of its own disarray and disrepute.

I would like to place on record the policy statement adopted by the congress in July of this year in regard to industrial relations. Either the Minister never heard of it or he did not bother to read it. The congress did adopt a policy:

Congress recognises that indiscriminate wage claims can be detrimental to the interests of workers and accepted the need for a review of the whole structure of wage demands and the devising of a system that would ensure a fairer share for all sections, particularly the lower-paid workers. Congress declared its support for all unions pursuing wage claims based on the cost of living, sharing in increased productivity and increasing the workers' share of the nation's wealth. Congress deplored the lack of progress made in the implementation of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value and called on the Government of the Republic to accept the principle and to begin the phasing in in the public service of equal pay and to introduce a Bill along the lines of the British Act.

These are just some of the policy lines adopted by Congress and they are notable for their moderation. Congress also noted the progress made in the public service in implementing superannuation and sick pay schemes for all employees and it called on trade unions to make the provision of adequate pension and sick pay schemes in the private sector their urgent objective. The concept of fringe benefits and extra wages is shot down by this Bill in a harsh and rigid manner that shows an appalling ignorance of the complexity of the many wage settlements and conditions of employment operating in the public service and in the private sector throughout the country.

One has but to recall the attempts of western European governments since the mid-1960s to introduce this type of legislation. One then realises the futility of fighting inflation on such an appallingly narrow front in terms of economic management. Western Germany has been able to maintain an exceptionally high growth rate without an incomes policy of this kind. Sweden and the Netherlands, both countries who have tried their best to introduce an effective wages and incomes policy, have not been any more successful than we have been in keeping down prices. Relatively speaking, Britain has had greater success in this regard than Ireland or the continental countries for reasons to which I shall refer later.

One would not have to do much reading of incomes policy developments on the continent to appreciate that the Dutch wages policy has collapsed now after the high hopes of the early 1960s. Even the tremendous efforts made in Britain through the agency of the NEDC to introduce an incomes policy have been rather fruitless. While I am not an advocate of Ted Heath, nevertheless at least he realises the extreme difficulty of introducing a comprehensive wage control system "in a free society". If one wants to have a Stalin-or Leninist-style of wage determination whereby one could tell a Dáil reporter his or her worth in money terms, in terms of job evaluation and of competence or otherwise, one could try to do it. One can try out this policy on any category, grade or profession in this country, but life is a little more complex and is not amenable to this kind of approach.

That is why the trade union movement have fought and will insist on maintaining certain basic principles in regard to wage bargaining. These principles are now shot down apparently and thrown overboard by the 12 so-called trade union members in the Fianna Fáil Party. Governments must accept their own limitations. We live in a democratic country. It is the job of the Government to influence; it may not necessarily be their job to exhort in the manner adopted by Deputy Childers on many occasions. The Government must place the facts of life before the negotiating parties but it is not their job to interfere directly, as they have done on this occasion, between the trade unions and employers.

In relation to State employees I accept the Government have a role to play; and when Deputy Haughey, in his capacity as Minister for Finance, told the public services committee of Congress that this was the view of the Government he was speaking in the context of an employer and of Government policy in relation to their management of their sphere of influence. His views were listened to and agreement was reached. He appreciated the limitations of the role of any Minister for Finance in the wage bargaining situation where one has to deal with 500,000 trade union members and many thousands of people who are not in trade unions and for whom one must cater.

That is the first principle—no interference in free negotiations between trade unions and employers. The second is that wage questions must be resolved by the normal processes of free collective bargaining, if this is possible. It is to the credit of Seán Lemass and the trade union leaders at the time that in the immediate post-war period of 1946 there was built up in this country a complex system of Labour Court recommendations. There was a voluntary system of joint industrial councils and joint labour committees, a wage settlement system, with the Labour Court having considerable influence through its conciliation service and its recommendations. These were regarded as the normal processes of free collective bargaining.

One might well ask what has this Bill done? It has riddled the 1946 Act. In the months ahead—and most certainly in 1971—it will prove to be a stupid operation. The trade union movement must reject any proposals for the control of wages while prices and profits remain uncontrolled and are, in effect, allowed to find their own level. I do not like to provoke Deputy Dowling, because he is liable to talk for another two hours tonight in reply, but does he or does anyone seriously suggest that there can be any analogy between the control of wages and the control of profits? If a particular company director is forced in a private company—and in many cases such a man may be a shareholder in the company—to peg back the level of wages in his company until after 1971 it merely means that his holding in that company is proportionately held in reserve for him to get in 1972. It means that his shares generally appreciate on the stock market. Such a man does not lose very much, but an Irish industrial worker loses. Does anyone seriously suggest that in a free open economy it is possible to control prices with the same rigidity as it is proposed to control the level of incomes?

I have frequently called for a large measure of effective price surveillance. I do not believe in price control. It is an emotive term. There is need for an effective system of price surveillance of a fairly elaborate and permanent nature and for something not of a transient, 12-month period as is mentioned in this Bill. A Government believing in its principles do not bring in something for 12 months. Inflation is not something that arrives one year and disappears on a set date the following year. If it is necessary to bring in legislation one legislates on a quasi-permanent basis for the community. These proposals have all the hallmarks of panic measures which were very hurriedly contrived to meet the current situation, without any indication as to what the long-term aspects of the problem are and without any indication as to whether such aspects are even understood by the Cabinet. These measures will make a lasting impression on the course of industrial relations in this country. The Government were warned about what would happen. Following the maintenance dispute had action been taken to foster and develop good industrial relations and had more initiative been shown by the Government, the idea of an incomes policy would have percolated into the mainstream of public consciousness much more effectively and the very practical recommendations which were made by the NIEC would not have been thrown out by the Government as they have been in recent weeks. By virtue of the ineptness of the proposals, the Government stand indicted.

I feel that the subject matter of my colleague's contribution is worth a larger audience.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

A further aspect of the Government's action in recent weeks is that not only have they provoked the general ire of the industrial workers, and of the public service workers in particular, but their hamfistedness must go on record as having provoked the general amazement of the employers' side. It is amazing that the Government should have decided to change completely the form of legislation after having met the executive members of congress but without even having had the courtesy of informing the employers' side of the decisions in this matter. No self-respecting Prime Minister in any country would make that kind of decision without at least joint consultation with both sides of industry. This may seem strange coming from a trade unionist, but it must be put on record that there was a published statement of the FUE which expressed strong criticism of the Government's decision to change the form of legislation following consultation with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions but without any consultation with the employers' side. It is one further indication of the panic which permeated the Government on the introduction of this piece of legislation. The Government stand indicted before the bar of public opinion.

This debate cannot be recorded without referring to the statement which was made by the President of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. This statement was published amid the welter of the arms trial and the various hysterical political developments in Fianna Fáil, and it did not receive its due merit in terms of comment in the public press. The 1969 Budget statement before this House clearly laid on the line what was emerging. I will quote from page 47 of that statement:

I would put it to Deputies that the situation we find ourselves in raises three main issues. First, what economic damage is going to come from the maintenance settlement and its effects on the new situation generally? Second, can we survive this damage? Third, can we do anything at this stage to mitigate the effect and, further, what do we do when, for want of a better term, I can only call the 12th round, has worked its way through the various employments?

This was in terms of early 1969, a period when, most certainly, it would not have been extremely difficult for anyone to get to grips with the then economic situation. What was the response? Let me just quote the reaction of Mr. Maurice Cosgrave, President of ICTU:

It is over a year ago that I and some others of my colleagues first put forward these objectives, and they were drawn to the attention of the then Minister for Finance, and the employers. I regret that they were not taken up at that time, because, in the meantime, with increasing prices the demand for wage increases has become higher, additional anomalies have arisen, and the price of maintaining a reasonable relationship between one group of workers and another has correspondingly increased. There is a gap to bridge between the present situation and the time when workers can be brought to accept, with confidence and without inequity, guaranteed real wage increases which may be lower in money terms than those which have been negotiated in recent settlements.

Mr. Cosgrave continued in this responsible vein:

No Government standstill can bridge that gap, and any Government intervention at a point in time when employers and trade unions are in discussion, and two and a half months before the first key agreements expire, is undesirable, unwise and unprecedented. Experience in this country and in other countries, demonstrates that attempts to evade the need for constructive solutions to inflationary situations by means of a ban or limitation on wage increases acts only as a temporary dam which in due course is swept away. Too much delay has already occurred. Further delay, whether by Government action on the one hand or by a failure to accept constructive policies on the other hand and the continuance of a "free-for-all" situation can only raise the price of settlement still higher in the long term.

I think that certainly, again, it can be agreed that that moderate course of action was outlined in preference to the current proposition of the Government.

Needless to remark the reaction of the President of ICTU to the measures themselves was predictably and instructively sharp. I think this should again go on the record of this House for the future edification of Ministers who may be tempted to introduce this kind of legislation:

Measures to control dividend payments for one year on the other hand can be regarded as a cynical pretence of action on non-wage incomes. The control of dividends will not affect shareholders' income by one penny. Share prices will rise by the amount of the undistributed dividend, and income from profits will be unaffected.

In the field of prices, it is notable that no general standstill is proposed. Some prices only will be controlled at retail level. The field is to be open for prices and profits to rise, outside a limited area.

The excuse for "urgency" in introducing these Draconian measures does not stand up to a moment's examination. A careful build up of public statements has created an illusion of urgency quite at variance with the facts. No major or key settlements are due to expire until December 31. There would have been adequate time, without Government interference, to have further explored the possibility of a voluntary agreement. No problems have been solved by the Government's action.

I think, therefore, one can point out to Deputies—and I am quite sure many of their constituents are only too well aware of the fact—what exactly is the situation. The main agreements in this country expiring up to 31st December, 1970, and which have not yet been negotiated, are—construction industry, maintenance craftsmen, engineering contract shops, electrical contracting, motor assembly, motor garages, structural steel, furniture industry, ESB, Bord na Móna, Aer Lingus (tradesmen), Goulding Ltd., Roadstone, Players & Wills (I.) Ltd., Clondalkin Paper Mills Ltd., Irish Ropes Ltd., Post Office Engineering Branch. These are some of the major national agreements due to expire up to 31st December, 1970, which have not yet been re-negotiated by extension. One might, therefore, legitimately ask what all the panic is about, in terms of these agreements being re-negotiated. I am quite hopeful that, if the Government keeps its nose out of trouble, it will be possible to achieve settlements in these agreements.

While these agreements I have listed expire up to 31st December, 1970, I would point out that on 1st January to 1st September, 1971—quite a distance ahead—other main agreements expire, such as Aer Lingus tradesmen, builders providers in Dublin—that expires around the middle of April—Dublin Gas Company, next May; Nítrigin Éireann, June, 1971; brush-making, July, 1971; retail and wholesale drapery trade, Dublin; grocery trade, Dublin, July, 1971; beef trade and beer trade of Dublin; the Irish Sugar Company and Erin Foods Ltd.; UDI Ltd.; Irish Ale Breweries Ltd., in September, 1971. So, there is quite a long period of time for settlements and for a pattern to emerge in the sense of negotiations being conducted on a non-hysterical basis by the employers and trade unions. Therefore, I think the actions of the Government bristle with general inconsistencies.

Any Government which is responsible for creating this difficulty in industrial relations, as this Government quite clearly is, as far as I am concerned, is merely compounding a crisis of confidence in this country. It is a further indication of the total incompetence of the Government to improve a situation which is very much created by themselves.

I think it is equally notable that the provisions of this Bill follow very sharply and very quickly on the increases approved for CIE and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. It is also very notable that further increases by these, and similar, bodies are not affected by this Bill which specifically excludes also from its provisions the charges made by local authorities—including rates, for example; a major factor in the cost of living for many people. One must also legitimately ask why prices paid to farmers for their produce are excluded from the provisions of this Bill. Farmers are, perhaps, the only group in the country whose income is not deliberately controlled by this Bill. You have the ironical situation that the wages of farm labourers are controlled by the Bill but what the farmer gets for his beet on the market is not definitely controlled. Market prices and the force of market influences and competition are allowed to operate, undiluted, in many industries and this is being brought sharply into focus in this country.

I should like to make a point in terms of our internal situation in the manufacturing industry. I am quite sure that notwithstanding the fact that profits are, by and large, not dramatically affected by this legislation, nevertheless, I think this kind of Bill must inevitably have a very depressing effect on the stock exchange and must tend to discourage capital investment in Irish industry. I should think that most entrepreneurs, manufacturers, would not place much confidence in this type of legislation. As regards foreign investment in relation to the implications of this Bill as it would affect companies and so on, I feel that a lack of confidence is inevitably created. That is a point that must be made in no uncertain terms to the Government.

I would remind the House further that on 28th October last the Minister made a statement here and I think, because of the enormity of that legislation, that statement should be wrapped around the Minister's head. He said:

We did not intervene until it became quite clear that agreement would not be reached——

He never said "could not be reached"

——and until claims had been made for some 13th round pay increases which must have startled many ardent trade unionists both in this country and abroad. Wildly unreasonable though these demands were, we know from experience that they would have set the pattern for 13th round claims generally and, because the country simply could not afford them, they would have disrupted national activity on a wide scale.

My only comment on that is to reissue the challenge from the Labour benches yesterday to the Minister for Finance to let us have details of the wildly unreasonable demands. Where are the saboteurs in terms of national negotiations? They have not been named and the claims have not been given. By and large, with the exception of a few minor rumours about claims, generally speaking, there is no basis for that wild assumption on the part of the Government.

Here I come to a point which I have often wondered about. I feel a bit ashamed at the idea that we have or are supposed to have in this country a Minister for Labour. That seems to be the most non-ministry we have ever created. The Minister for Labour does not seem to be asserting any influence, even about the provision of information to the Cabinet. I do not know whether there is any liaison between the Taoiseach's Department, the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Labour under whose jurisdiction the Labour Court operates, but it seems to me that the information is just being made up as they go along. That must be what happened on this occasion. Therefore, we must again put on record the categorical comment of the Minister for Finance, which was withdrawn hastily, that there was no intention of amending the major basic provisions of this legislation. I quote the Sunday Press of 18th October. He made that statement, an extraordinary statement, in public at a press conference, to the full galaxy of newspaper and television journalists. I suppose at the time he was very anxious to prove his new-found strength vis-á-vis the internal Fianna Fáil crisis and to say: “Look at me, I am as good as Charlie and I can run the show with even more determination”. He went on to make the extraordinary admission, which I would regard as one which should have been kept in his hind pocket for the negotiations: “We would certainly have been prepared to agree to something higher than what we have provided for now”.

In simple terms he conveyed: "The statutory minimum was not really what I meant. We would be prepared for something higher". One could regard this only as a kind of Clontarf coyness or an assurance that his officials were armed to go to a certain limit but he would allow them to go further if he thought a settlement could be brought about. Did he say that to the trade unions or to the others? He said it to the national press. A few sentences later he said that in no circumstances would any of the other provisions be altered.

That is a measure of the lack of credibility of the Minister himself. At this stage I should like to repeat very briefly a comment I made yesterday that the danger has been irreparable, particularly in the matter of phased agreements being continued in this country. Yesterday I pointed out that long-term agreements had very considerable advantages and that phased agreements also had considerable advantages because they afford a substantial measure of stability in wage growth in this country and in wage cost development. By having that kind of certainty bound into agreements, the incidence of strikes in industry was reduced and it had the other advantage that it allowed companies a greater length of time in negotiation or in the re-negotiation of agreements at short intervals. It had all those advantages. On this occasion the Government made a total mess of the situation and incurred the wrath of the trade unions, and rightly so.

On the 22nd October the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, and the national executive of that union, pointed out that the additional powers which the Government would have to invoke, and the measures themselves, would most certainly affect the process of free negotiation and the right to strike, a right which had been won at very great cost and very great sacrifice and which would not be surrendered easily even for a temporary or limited period.

The union also pointed out—and I very much concur with this—that it is clear beyond doubt that, having enacted these measures and assumed the appropriate powers, at the end of next year the Government would not only want to retain them indefinitely but would also want to add to them, bearing in mind that, by that time, workers would be formulating claims which would have full regard to their financial losses in the interim period due to the impact of the proposed restrictive measures. If one wants to say anything critical about the Government one only needs to ponder on the implications of that statement.

The union also said in a lengthy statement that the Government measures, even if they were in force, would not solve anything, that at best they would merely defer the onset of even greater problems and at worse destroy the whole moral fibre of the nation because of loss of credibility in the Government as a result of the repressive measures which they now seek to enforce. These were strong words from the moderate executive, I would say, of the largest trade union in this country, the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, with over 100,000 members.

The union pointed out, quite rightly, that at the conclusion of the maintenance dispute last year, the national executive council of the ITGWU indicated publicly that the union would honour all the agreements they had then entered into. That assurance was welcomed by employers and by the Government because they realised that industrial relations would have been reduced to a shambles if the parties to these agreements were permitted to dishonour their obligations for any reason. I vividly remember the difficulties in relation to the maintenance dispute agreement. With Con Murphy I was one of the ICTU assessors at the subsequent inquiry into that agreement.

One of the appallingly difficult problems at the conclusion of that maintenance dispute was whether or not there would be a major, massive, total leapfrogging, with everybody demanding precisely the same as the maintenance craftsmen had succeeded in getting. Instead, the Transport Union, the Workers' Union and the general unions said they would honour the agreements they had entered into prior to the maintenance dispute and would allow these agreements to run. Of course, now that these agreements have expired, their members are rather irate because the Government are sticking their finger into that very delicately-shaped pie and causing a major upheaval in the overall position.

Therefore, one can only conclude, as the Transport Union have rightly said, that the Government measures clearly indicate a deliberate sabotage of the employer-labour conference and, as a consequence, the union asked Congress to consider what might be done in that regard. That statement was issued by the Transport Union and simultaneously another statement was issued by the Workers' Union of Ireland, with 35,000 members. They also rejected the proposals of the Minister as being completely unjustified, unfair and inequitable, and they rejected the apparently panic-stricken decision the Minister for Finance and the Government have now made. They desired to place on record the determination of the union to bring about a reversal of the announced policy.

I do not think it augurs well for Parliament or for the future of this House for a Minister to come in and say: "If you reach agreement we will not enforce the legislation." That is not government. That is no more than a rather ill-contrived piece of economic blackmail. It just is not on in terms of a rational and sane approach to industrial workers and to workers in the public service. Therefore, the Government are in quite serious difficulty. It must also be pointed out that at the public service level not only have the Government withdrawn the daft measures in relation to the non-conceding of the second phase of the 12th round agreement but there are also currently awaiting determination at arbitration level quite a large number of claims within the service.

In reply to a question on 29th October, 1970, the Minister said that there were 14 Civil Service claims awaiting determination at arbitration level. A claim for higher pay for eight grades was submitted by the Post Office Management Staffs' Association. That association also had three other claims, a claim for higher pay for three grades, a claim for reduction in the working week for four grades and a claim for increased annual leave for four grades. A claim for a reduction in the working week for six grades was submitted by the Post Office Workers' Union. The Institute of Professional Civil Servants had claims for higher pay for three grades, a claim regarding the effective date of an arbitration finding and another claim for higher pay for one grade. The Civil Service Clerical Association had a claim for increased annual leave for four grades. The GPO Departmental Officers' Union had a claim for higher pay for one grade. The Aviation Technical Officers' Association had a claim for higher pay for three grades and the Irish Post Office Engineering Union had a claim for service pay.

I rather pity the staff of the Department of Finance because they have to carry out the strategy or non-strategy of the Minister. I do not think the Minister appreciates the complexity of what is contained in these claims relating to annual leave, service pay, higher pay, higher grades, and so on, made by various public servants. I do not think he appreciates the kind of bubble he is trying to blow particularly on the post office side because on that side there is a good deal of ill-feeling at the moment. Any cursory examination of the Bill would, in my opinion, show the stupidity of what is proposed.

I am honestly appalled that any Minister should come into this House and say: "There is no dispute within my party or behind the Fianna Fáil Party. Nobody has any reservations at all." Apparently all that happened at the meeting of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party was that the Minister outlined the general economic measures he was about to introduce in the Budget a few weeks ago. Apart from that there seems to have been no discussion at all. There is supposed to be a Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party. It got a terrible "holy-water" blessing from Deputy Boland and Deputy Haughey when they suggested that the Parliamentary Party should have been fully consulted. I wonder were the views of Deputy Seán Moore sought?

The Deputy need not start interfering with our party. There were two days of discussions on this Bill. There were two days during which this Bill was discussed by the Parliamentary Party.

Not within the Parliamentary Party.

I beg the Deputy's pardon. However, the Deputy can go on repeating himself interminably if he wishes.

I can assure the Minister that it must be repeated here that, so far as I know, there was no expression of view from Deputy Seán Moore, a member of the Workers' Union of Ireland, Deputy Joe Dowling, allegedly a member of the National Engineering and Electrical Trade Union, Deputy Sylvester Barrett, a member of the Irish Local Government Officials' Union, Deputy Browne, a member of a printing union, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noel Lemass, an honmember of the Irish Commercial Travellers' Federation, the Minister for Education, Deputy Padraig Faulkner, a member of the INTO——

Where do you leave me?

——a member of a medical union—Deputy James Tunney, a member of the Vocational Teachers' Association, Deputy Pearse Wyse, another member of a printing union——

We have nearly more trade unionists than your party now.

I wonder what those members of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party carry a union card for. Did they ever ring up and find out that their trade unions were opposed to——

We are getting away from the Bill now.

It is very relevant to the Bill to the extent that the Fianna Fáil members who are members of trade unions seem to be very unappreciative and very much unaware of the fact that the trade unions of which they are members are completely opposed to this legislation. I do not know if the anomalous position they are facing when they walk into the Lobby in this House has dawned on them. I am sure Deputy Dowling will suffer considerable anxiety and have long sleepless nights before going up to CIE, Inchicore and telling people up there that the Minister's statement means that such things as improvements in hours of work, allowances and rates of remuneration in respect of overtime are barred. I would like to see Deputy Dowling pay a courtesy call to the engineering workshop of CIE——

I often go there.

——and try to explain that under this Bill, from 1971 onwards, if CIE upgrades one member from X grade to Y grade, unless it is justified to the Minister for Labour, through the Labour Court if necessary, he will lose that remuneration. Does he not see that he would be laughed out of Inchicore? We have an employer on the other side of the House, Deputy Donegan. I remember Deputy Donegan being on one side and I on the other at provender milling joint labour committee meetings. He knows it is not a terribly complex industry and yet there are quite a few grades of industrial workers in it. He will agree with me that in the provender end of his own industry a particular industrial worker might take out a driving licence and might subsequently become a lorry driver in his company and might then be deserving, in the negotiable sense, of a readjustment of his pay rates. Apparently under this Bill this could not be done. The Minister uses the word "rigid" and he uses the word "barred" in his brief. I would pity any Fianna Fáil Deputy at any Fianna Fáil cumann meeting—that is on the assumption that at the moment they dare to go to those meetings—trying to explain away the provisions of this Bill.

Let us take a look at the rate of pay of dockers in Dublin and try to apply the provisions of this Bill to them. Could Deputy Seán French go to a cross-channel docker in Cork who is paid on an hourly basis, or say, to a deep-sea docker in Dublin, who is paid on a tonnage basis, to the stevedores in Cork, or, say, to Tom Doyle in Cork, and explain, with the variety of rates of tonnage, piece rates, flat rates, daily rates and so on, the terms of this Bill in terms of the definition of basic remuneration?

Did the Deputy ever see two trade union officials with the same rate?

If he does that he will lose more than his Cork accent. In that context this Bill is just inoperable. It is the product of minds that have been around the Cabinet table for far too long and are completely out of touch with the realities of industrial and trade union life.

What of the Labour Court? The Labour Court becomes a kind of Mickey Mouse sanctioning body under this Bill. The Minister takes industrial relations to himself and I presume to a couple of assistant secretaries and a few principal officers. How it will be done will be a subject for a cartoon for Dublin Opinion. The Labour Court apparently may be consulted by the Minister. He may ask for recommendations from the Labour Court if he feels that a particular increase is warranted in basic remuneration within the norms laid down here. On the 29th October the Minister for Labour told me that for the first nine months of 1970 conciliation conferences were held on 385 issues before the Labour Court and these conferences led to settlements in 284 cases. The number of meetings required in order to settle these conferences was 688, excluding joint industrial council meetings. That was for the first nine months of 1970. Two out of every three disputes that went to conciliation level were settled at that level. The eyebrows of Mr. Dermot McDermott, the chief conciliation officer, and of his fellow conciliation officers, and indeed of the members of the Labour Court must be raised at the moment. The very decorative dickey bow which Mr. T.J. Cahill wears must be spinning around in sheer amazement at the stupidity of the Government's propositions. They have in effect, by the introduction of this legislation, discarded the Labour Court, emasculated them and put them into a political vacuum. Did it ever drawn on the Minister for Labour or on the Minister for Finance or on the Cabinet that heretofore we had far less inflationary settlements than could now perhaps emerge from the negotiations about to take place where, for example, the Labour Court, acting in consultation with the Government, issued guidelines, norms, as they have the power to do under the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, in the public interest? Did it ever dawn on the Cabinet that the whole status and function of the court and the respect which the Labour Court have won over the past 24 years, by virtue of the professional ability of their staff, will be diluted?

The conciliation staff have improved very considerably in the past three or four years after a great deal of pressure from the Labour Party in this House who have been constantly harping at the Minister for Industry and Commerce in that regard. Has it ever dawned on the Government that that staff must be very disillusioned by the terms of this Bill because they are aware of the complexity of the situation? They know that in any industrial negotiating set-up one must have a degree of flexibility, that one does not say baldly "7 per cent", one must ask the question: how do you apply 7 per cent right down the line on the several hundred varieties of rates, pay and conditions of employment, on the whole range of shift work payments in operation in Irish industry, whether it is a two, three or four shift system, whether it is overtime working on Saturday or Sunday? How do you apply that particular legislation to the complexity of industrial relations within each particular firm? If the Government had consulted effectively and fully with the Labour Court it might well have in many respects avoided the confrontation which they have worked themselves up into in this legislation.

Deputy Dr. Hillery, for all his inarticulate and jocose kind of approach at times, was very much more perceptive in many respects than the Minister for Finance. I would remind the Minister that there is now a contradiction in statements very evident within the Cabinet. In May, 1969, Deputy Dr. Hillery spoke to the Institute of Public Administration in Galway at a well attended seminar on the need for an incomes policy. If the Minister for Finance cares to check up the script of that particular conference he will note that midway through the speech of Deputy Dr. Hillery he adamantly stated he was completely opposed to the introduction of statutory incomes policy measures in this country. One can only remind the Government of that kind of contradiction where it has done a complete about face in relation to the introduction of this legislation. I would also point out the considerable difference in tone and attitude in the provisions contained in the Prices and Incomes Bill introduced on 21st May, 1968, in the British House of Commons. I do not favour what the British Labour Government did at that time but at least they must be given credit for the fact that Mrs. Barbara Castle and Mr. Harold Wilson had at least a little more subtlety and little more sensitivity in them than the Government here in introducing this type of legislation.

The Government in Britain adopted the attitude that as far as they were concerned increases could be allowed in certain instances. For example, they said in the 1968 Act that where there were genuine cases of increased productivity increases would certainly be permitted. There is no such provision in our legislation. The British Government also pointed out that they would keep their options open in their legislation in relation to the low paid workers. There is an element of flexibility there which does not exist in our legislation. It will also be recalled, in relation to the British legislation, that the workers involved in helping to introduce a redistribution of manpower inside an industry in Britain were to be given special leeway in relation to the statutory measures in that Bill. Finally, there was a general provision, which was a loophole deliberately inserted because otherwise the Bill would not have been operative in any context, that workers whose pay had fallen seriously out of line with the general level of pay for similar work, would, be and large, be accommodated. Do we get any indication of that kind of thinking within this type of legislation? We certainly do not. One of the tragedies of this Bill is that rather than help the growth of productivity in this country it will more likely damage it in the short and long terms.

I had hoped that at least the Minister in his introductory comments would have pointed out that in this country the Government would support, back and fully approve the introduction of productivity agreements, even if it meant that such agreements would result in a package deal within which workers would get substantially more than what the Government might have in mind in terms of their conception of a norm for an increase. There is no such proposition within the Bill. There is no doubt that such agreements can increase substantially the pace of economic growth in this country by the more effective utilisation of costly capital equipment and by the more effective utilisation of manpower in industry. Supposing an employer says: "We will bring in those machines, we will readapt, we will redeploy our manpower, we will restructure the whole floor of this particular undertaking and in the process by virtue of the new machinery, the new methods of work, the new techniques of production and so on, the introduction of shift work we will then readjust in toto the whole pay structure inside our firm,” what does that firm do? They ring up the Department of Industry and Commerce or the Department of Finance and they are told: “You have got to readjust the pay levels of the workers in accordance with the provisions laid out in this Bill.” What happens then? The workers concerned become completely disillusioned, and uninterested in productivity growth.

I am amazed that one should have within the Cabinet a person with such obvious concern as the Tánaiste, who has spoken ad nauseam on the question of productivity growth in this country and productivity agreements and that in relation to things like demarcation lines in this country, the stepping up of the work pace inside firms, the abolition of overtime, which is urgent in some industries. This Bill completely destroys and completely interferes with that kind of development.

What will happen? If you want to get a wage increase and the Bill does not allow you, you go to your employer and say: "Can I work six hours overtime tonight and four hours tomorrow night at the current basic rate"? Your employer will say: "Certainly, the Minister will not allow me to give you a wage increase but you can work a couple of hours overtime, clock it in and everything will be all right". Is that a satisfactory state of industrial relations? Is that a satisfactory way of ensuring the growth of productivity? It certainly is not. It is not a constructive proposition in terms of legislation.

Is the Deputy implying that all employers and employees are dishonest?

I am not suggesting that any employer or employee is dishonest. I am suggesting they will look at this Bill with amazement and they will have no difficulty, whether they are trade union members, employers, workers or anybody else, in making holes in it when the time arises. The Government should, for that reason, withdraw the Bill.

I would remind the House that in Britain, much as I object to their kind of legislation, which has now been dropped, the National Board for Prices and Incomes had the common sense to lay down guidelines in regard to the extent to which workers could get wage increases arising out of productivity agreements. In our case there is no such provision and the Government must stand indicted for interfering with productivity at the level of the individual firms in this country.

I am equally appalled that in his statement the Minister says:

This means that improvements in such things as hours of work, allowances, and rates of remuneration in respect of overtime are barred by the Bill.... Bonuses, commission and similar payments may continue to be made provided the terms on which they were payable as of 16th October, 1970, are not varied.

Does that mean that if an employer says to a worker "I cannot give you any more than the statutory maximum laid down by the Bill but I will give you a new superannuation scheme which will be the equivalent of 3 or 4 per cent", that is permissible? I would remind the Minister that workers are not solely concerned with money increases, which is an important factor to bear in mind in discussing these matters. In the ESRI Survey Report issued in August, 1970—the survey carried out a study in depth of workers' conditions, pay increases, fringe benefits and so on—there was the significant statement on page 53:

Just over half the sample of workers (53 per cent) said that they would prefer their increase in cash, while 46 per cent opted for one or other of the benefits among which a better pension was the most popular, with sick pay next.

Supposing a funded pension scheme or a sick pay scheme is brought in, being equivalent in terms of labour costs to 3 per cent per worker, is this permissible under the Bill? The public servants have had to prepare the Minister's brief within the limitations of the extent to which they knew the Minister's mind. I pity them having to try to divine what was in the Minister's mind. If a Minister for Finance came before any western European Parliament with a brief of this nature on prices and incomes legislation he would be told to go out and get his redundancy money because he would not be tolerated in that situation.

I regret having detained the House so long but I feel strongly on these issues. I would point out that there is always this misconception in the House and in the country at large that the prime motivating influence is the level of wages. I wish to quote from the Review of 1969 and the Outlook for 1970 incorporating the Third Programme Review, paragraph 26 of which says:

During the year as a whole the index—

the consumer price index—

—was 7.4 per cent on average above the level of 1968. Higher taxation and higher food prices accounted for 55 to 60 per cent of the increase.

I do not think one can let the Government off the hook without pointing out that the increased taxation of the current Budget is one of the prime inflationary factors in the present situation. In strict honesty the Minister should admit this and not simply stamp the brand of inflation on the backs of Irish industrial workers, saying: "That is your responsibility and yours alone."

If the Deputy is talking about honesty surely he will admit that the main reason for the increased taxation was the very question of wage inflation. The Government are the largest employers in the country in the sense of the public service. About a quarter of the people employed are employed in the public service in its broadest sense, and when there is an inflationary wage situation of course there is increased taxation.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

It might be more helpful if the Deputy were to address himself to that. Would the Deputy make a suggestion as to how the situation should be dealt with?

Or should have been dealt with.

You should talk about what should be done now.

You are guilty, my lord.

That is what the public want to know.

I would point out to the Minister that in the ESRI Report of January, 1968, dealing with Price Inflation in Ireland, they made this very clear prediction:

Increased taxation seems likely to be one of the more proximate sources or symptoms of inflation in the near future.

Again, adequate warning was given to the Government.

The Bill suffers from another defect, a defect which is certainly admitted now by the Minister. There was the intimation of December, 1969, that in the view of the Government increases in overall incomes in 1970 should be kept within the limit of 7 per cent and that the increase in the first year of new wage agreements should be roughly 30s per week per adult male worker. At the same time the Minister for Industry and Commerce would disallow for compensatory price increases any increase in labour costs in 1970 in excess of 30s per worker per week. That is another one of the famous statements which most certainly did not come into operation.

The Minister has asked what are the alternatives. That is a legitimate question to put before the House. There is the overriding solution that with effective economic management one could, in the first instance, prevent that kind of situation evolving. I do not think it requires any lengthy assertion on my part to prove that even though the Government have introduced this Bill with various provisions in respect of price control and price supervision, it is perhaps the most half-hearted change of mind which any Government have ever suffered in the history of the State. I do not want to weary the House but I could quote the Minister's assurance time and time again when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce that what he is now proposing in the Bill was an utter and complete impossibility. Here one must accept that the complexity of price control is such that it is virtually impossible to have an overall system which will cater effectively for the very intricate process of price formation and price development in the economy.

In supermarkets there is a great deal of price leadership, marginal selling, price mixing, price branding, price scale of economies and so on. There are so many variations of complicated arithmethical computations in respect of prices that, even though the Minister's intention may be good, the outcome of this Bill will be virtually nothing. This is a common fact of life because of the complexity of the differential price range in the pricing of products.

There was nothing to prevent the Government during the last five years introducing a tough and sometimes rough system of price stabilisation, price investigation, price surveillance and price monitoring. This was not done and now Deputy Colley and the Government are the authors of their own misfortune. On 3rd November last I put down a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce asking him to specify the commodities which were the subject of the Price Advisory Body's investigations during the past four years. The Minister replied that there were no investigations by the Price Advisory Body during the past four years. Flour and bread, which are fairly common commodities in terms of price control and stabilisation, and electricity which, again, is subject to fairly rigid influence by the Minister, were the only commodities investigated by price advisory bodies in the period specified.

I did not think the Deputy would start talking about flour and bread.

I have considerable experience.

The Deputy has indeed. He was a member of the body which investigated it before he became a Member of this House——

Precisely.

——and he went along with the whole thing until it came to signing it and then he did not sign it.

Precisely, I did not sign the report.

I did not think the Deputy would draw attention to that fact.

If I ever had the privilege of publishing the information I obtained while a member of the Prices Advisory Body on flour and bread there would have been some very red faces both in this House and in the Department of Industry and Commerce. There are limitations imposed by the Official Secrets Act and by the other documents one is obliged to sign when one becomes a member of a prices advisory body. The reason why I did not sign that report was that I did not believe in it. I have the report at home and every time I read it I am convinced that to have signed that report would have been dishonest. In any event, no investigations were carried out in the four years up to 1970 at price advisory committee level. The only commodities to suffer the indignity of public investigations were flour, bread and electricity. This shows the Government's lack of interest in and lack of attention to the matter.

No effort has been made during this discussion, or for that matter in any of the propositions put before the House, to consider the possibility of price reductions. Needless to remark, that thought never dawned on the Minister for Industry and Commerce. In the British White Paper on prices and incomes it was pointed out that in certain industries it was quite possible to provide for price reductions. No provision is made in this Bill for the Minister to order a price reduction below current levels of increases. I may be reading the Bill wrongly but I do not see any mention of it in the Bill. The situation could arise where a commodity costing X price today could be reduced because certain market forces had been developed, new equipment appeared and as a result the labour intensive costs of that particular commodity disappeared but never a word from the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Another failure of the Government in terms of prices is the failure to set up, as has been introduced in many local authority areas in Britain, an effective system of normal consumer protection. A Bill was introduced recently in this House but I do not see any attempt to bring in a comprehensive trade descriptions Bill as a measure to ensure that consumers get a fair deal. We must not cod ourselves about price control. If the Minister refuses to allow an increase in the price of a bar of soap which costs 1s today, the manufacturers will introduce a slightly inferior ingredient thereby creating an inferior product. It is not too difficult for manufacturers to circumvent such a decision and thereby obtain a price increase. The inspectorate system of the Department of Industry and Commerce does not give the Minister any great control over such a situation.

There is a complete absence of any form of citizens' advice bureaux in terms of price. Such bureaux are common-place on the continent and in Scandinavian countries and consumers are able to obtain regular, detailed advice on the prices of commodities. This enables consumers to get a fair deal at wholesale and retail level. The Department of Industry and Commerce does not give any marked assistance to ensure that consumer advisory groups are set up all over the country. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has expressed no concern in the matter. The Institute for Industrial Research and Standards seemingly plays no role in the field of cost analysis. These are some areas where the Government could take direct action in relation to price control.

I shall conclude with some references to particular institutional aspects of the Bill itself. The Minister in introducing this Bill said that the hopes, as set out in the Third Programme that a proper institutional framework would enable unions and employers to work out arrangements on pay which would be consistent with the national interest, were encouraged by the unanimous adoption by the NIEC of a report on incomes and prices policy and by the apparent recognition by both unions and employers of the need to avoid a recurrence of the twelfth round. This report was published in April, 1970, and proposed new institutional arrangements designed to help to achieve a closer relationship between increases in money incomes and increases in national production.

One would get the impression from this that there was some sort of commitment on the part of the Government, first, to the Third Programme and, secondly, to the concept of implementing the various measures proposed by the NIEC in relation to a prices and incomes policy. I strongly suggest that the reverse is the case. I know of no clear-cut commitment by Government Ministers in support of a prices and incomes policy as advanced by successive NIEC reports. We had a total of 28 reports. The very concept and work of the NIEC has been resented by many members of the Cabinet and particularly by the present Minister for Finance. I always got the impression that he was highly suspicious of economists who would dare to tell him anything in regard to his exalted concept of the management of the country's economic affairs. There were suggestions that these were outside experts telling Parliament and the Government what to do. Now the Government come running to shelter under the NIEC reports.

In preparing my contribution today I looked back over the statements made by Mr. Whitaker in 1958 and he gave some semblance of an economic policy to the Fianna Fáil Party then. I do not feel apologetic for the shambles that occurred in 1956-57 but were it not for the publication of "Economic Development" in 1958 the first tenative steps towards the evolution of a rational, up-to-date economic policy would not have been taken. Even in that document, on page 27, it was said quite clearly that the success of any policy of economic development would depend on the effective and continued co-operation of the trade unions in promoting increased productivity and in avoiding increases in wages and salaries which would injure export prospects or dislocate the balance of payments.

He went on to talk objectively about the need to tackle inflation. Even as far back as 1958 when Fianna Fáil began its long period in office—now, fortunately, coming to an end—the growth that took place in our economy was the result of the various Government Departments implementing what was contained in that book while the Cabinet was shuffled and reshuffled. Deputy Lemass came in then and gave the process a useful shot in the arm. The present Taoiseach then arrived, sat down, gazed wonderingly at the world and said: "I am Taoiseach. Now, what am I going to do?" He did nothing since his election in October or November, 1966. This is his outstanding attribute. He reacts to events. If you can get him roused he will make a good speech; otherwise there is little contribution from him.

Generally, when one looks at the First Programme, the Second Programme in 1964 and the one now completely discarded, the Third Programme, which was supposed to operate into 1972 and which contains dire warnings and a whole chapter on an incomes policy and which stressed throughout the need for the implementation of NIEC Report No. 11 and of Report No. 18 on full employment which was published in March, 1967, three and a half years ago—I do not want to bore the House by going through the litany——

For God's sake, do not.

I have no intention of boring the House with a litany of propositions regarding what this Government could do in terms of an incomes policy but I shall certainly quote to the Minister and particularly to the Tánaiste——

After three hours of the Deputy's speech I am impervious to anything the Deputy says.

I shall save the Minister the agony of having to read through Report No. 11 on the economic situation in 1965 but I suggest he should read only the summary from pages 8, 9 and 10 of this report signed by Brendan Menton and Mr. Whitaker, as chairman. He will find the other proposals that we in the Labour Party subscribe to contained within the remainder of the document.

That report was signed by men such as Louden Ryan. He was not very much welcomed by the Cabinet on many occasions but they became accustomed to him and in his own quiet academic manner he was not the first academician to put many a Fianna Fáil Minister into his little box. John Conroy signed that report. That was a very courageous act at the time because the report contained a great deal of dynamite. Fianna Fáil never bothered even to read it. Jim Larkin signed it as did Charles McCarthy and Donal Nevin. These were the trade union nominees and they reflected, by and large, the thinking within the trade union movement in relation to farmers' incomes, professional earnings, rents, profits and capital gains. All this was outlined and developed subsequently in detail in the Report on Incomes and Prices, Report No. 27.

These reports are available to the Government and represent adequate alternative policies which were never implemented. They were available with the best economic advice and the Government did not bother to read them or attempt to implement them. Now, what do the Government come along with? They produce a shoddy political package deal which has very little relevance to the future evolution of an incomes and prices policy.

In conclusion, I should point out that only when a prices and incomes policy is seen by this House in the context of an overall economic plan will we in the Labour Party go along the road with the kind of thinking which permeates the Government in some of its reactions. In the kind of economic free-for-all in which we live at present there is very little hope for either a voluntary or compulsory policy in this area. I suggest that the nature of the inflation in this country is not so much that earnings have grown so rapidly by European standards but that, generally, output has risen far too slowly.

On Committee Stage we will fight this Bill paragraph by paragraph. If we are compelled to talk at length on the Bill we make no apology for doing so. If we can force from the Government an admission of their mismanagement of the economy over the past four or five years we will certainly extract that acknowledgment. I shall reserve until that occasion a more detailed analysis of the Bill. I prophesy that this Bill will die the same death as the ESB (Special Provisions) Bill died in September of 1961. Remember, the Minister for Industry and Commerce of the day, Deputy Seán Lemass, was a much more agile political animal than is our present non-Taoiseach, or non-Leader of the Government, or the non-Minister for Finance we have at the moment. Deputy Lemass was forced in September, 1961, to remove the teeth from that piece of legislation. Following the pattern of the moment, we have now this piece of non-legislation as a pseudo-contribution to Irish economic development.

We listened to a three hour speech from Deputy Desmond, a speech in which he appeared to have some kind of alternative proposals to those in this Bill. He suggested that the Government had not tried to have voluntarily adopted by the Congress of Trade Unions and the employers the NIEC proposals for an incomes and prices policy. That is utterly untrue. In every year since the proposals were mooted the Minister for Labour has had discussions in order to see whether it would be possible to apply such a policy in whole or in part. We have all of us spoken about the NIEC reports. Every Minister has quoted the NIEC reports and has asked people to show a reasonable attitude towards the growth of incomes vis-à-vis productivity.

Deputy Desmond is apparently a complete pessimist because he indicated that the wage structure, the salary structure, the grade structure, the complexity of price levels and the price structure were all far too complicated to envisage an incomes and prices policy. He really contradicted himself.

I did not. I said they were far too complicated to absorb this kind of legislation. That is a very different thing.

He left us in an impenetrable fog. I shall not try to answer all the points made by Deputy Desmond but I should like to say a few words about the relationship of our economic crisis with the crises in other countries in Europe so that people here will not be induced into hysterical thinking in relation to this Bill.

Most European countries have had serious inflationary crises at one time or another. I cannot find a single case in which the government of the day was not compelled because of the psychological or political implications of the situation to wait until the last possible moment before taking action. Governments simply had to wait because, human nature being what it is, if there is an incipient rise in wages and prices and if, at the same time, the figures for production and exports do not seem to be materially or violently affected and a government takes very severe restrictive action, everybody says: "They are exaggerating the position. It is not nearly as bad as they say. Wait for the new productivity figures; wait for some signs of moderation in wage demands; wait and see the next price index." The result is that governments are more or less compelled to wait until there seems to be no other alternative but some form of drastic disinflationary action.

At the moment the Swedes are facing an acute inflation. This is the kind of thing to which people here should pay attention in order to get the right perspective. The Swedes are in a state of great consternation because there has been an increase of 7 per cent in consumer prices in one year. No one need think that we will be inclined to take drastic action when we contemplate the possibility of an increase in prices of 10 per cent next year if corrective action is taken by the voluntary effort of employers and unions. The Swedes are now engaged in negotiations between employers and workers in order to try to keep down what are regarded as grossly excessive wage demands. There will now be a very much stricter control on prices than there was before.

They never brought in a Bill of this nature.

The rise in consumer prices in Sweden has not been more than 7 per cent. It is just as well people should realise the fact that these problems occur elsewhere. Equally, in the case of Denmark, there is there a serious balance of payments problem. A new price freeze was imposed in September and that will continue until the end of February when it will be replaced by an incomes policy which can be enforced for several years. This includes a form of price control so severe that employers will be utterly unable to raise wages more than the amount dictated by the Danish Government. If they do so they will go out of business. Let us realise then that this kind of crisis can occur in other countries.

Again, people should get a proper appreciation and realisation of the present position in Britain. Britain is a far more powerful country than we are. She has a long tradition of industry and a huge foreign investment, to say nothing of the remains of a great empire. Yet, Britain was nearly brought to her knees and practically to total bankruptcy solely because the Government did not deal adequately with the problem of inflation. The Government left it too late, later than we are leaving it from the point of view of this Bill before the House, and Britain had to devalue the £ and the position there has not yet been corrected. The British Prime Minister faces the kind of crisis exemplified by the fact that there was a 1½ per cent reduction in production in July of this year as compared with July of last year, a 2.2 per cent reduction in employment in industry in August of this year as compared with August of last year and a 1 per cent reduction in productivity in July this year compared with July of last year.

The people have got to face the fact that every reputable economist in Great Britain in commenting on the measures that Mr. Health, the Prime Minister, must take says there are only two alternatives by which Great Britain can avoid further devaluation or further severe economic difficulties. The first is what is called "the starving the cold" theory in which there is a really desperately severe cut in the amount of credit to be made available for the whole community. The Economist—a reputable newspaper which could be described as far from conservative—and The Observer point out that if this course is adopted there would be widespread unemployment, widespread industrial difficulties and many industries would close down. Any possible chance of Great Britain —a very great industrial power, with a people of great intelligence—beginning to make economic progress again would be slowed down for a period of years.

The second alternative suggested by virtually all the reputable economists in Great Britain, no matter what their politics, is that of a firm incomes and prices policy. They are now discussing why the Prime Minister has chosen the first policy and why he has not at least examined the possibility of the second policy. However, it is understood that the Prime Minister hopes as a result of the severe credit cuts in the whole of the British economic domain there will emerge a willingness to consider an incomes and prices policy which will result in a reduction in inflation in Great Britain.

In relation to any really severe cut in credit which we might apply in this country, our industrial base is not strong enough. Our circumstances are not the same as those obtaining in Great Britain. We are too dependent on exports and we would not conceive of a policy, which is the only alternative, that would have the effect of almost guaranteeing severe unemployment and the closing down of industries. I mention this because no one can come and talk in a flippant way about this Bill as though it was not necessary and was too severe in character. One has only to look at the situation obtaining in Great Britain and the adverse economic position that Britain has faced for the last four or five years. We are very close trading partners and we have many of the same trade union structures as the British. We can see what is happening in Britain and we should make some effort to exercise reasonable restraint for a period so that the country can resume the economic advance which has been so tremendous in the last 12 years.

One can examine the position obtaining in other countries. Let us take the case of Germany, a country that has kept to the economic rules possibly better than any other country since World War II. In that country there are demands by workers for increases in wages of 11½ per cent to 14 per cent. The comments made on this matter have been that the growth of productivity has been so tremendous that the country can afford it. Nevertheless on all sides there is a fear expressed even in Germany—an industrial giant that has made colossal strides since the War—about this increase in wages. There is common discussion between trade unions and employers who are examining the position. Germany is a country in which the wage costs per unit of output increased only marginally from 1963 to 1966. They actually decreased in 1968 and then went up again. In 1970 the wage costs per unit of output were about 10 per cent above the 1963 rate and that was about the same figure as the increase in 1966 over 1963. In spite of that the Germans, who have had only one particularly difficult economic period, are going to examine the position to make sure they do not break their record of having the workers' standard of living constantly increasing. The workers have been able to retain whatever increase they got because the cost of living did not rise in the same way as happens in countries that do not observe the rules.

This point is extremely important. Those who say that the Government waited too long before they took action have only to look at the countries of Europe. They will see the only way a Government can get a real consensus for dealing with inflation is when it is patently obvious, and then the necessary co-operation can be secured from employers and trade unions. In some ways we have acted more quickly than a number of European countries. For example, in 1969 none of the really serious elements of inflation could be seen until the end of the year. It is no use saying if we tried then to impose some compulsory action designed to stop inflation we would have got support. In spite of very large wage increases their impact was not sufficient upon production, employment or even prices until the end of the year to warrant our taking action on which we must have the understanding of the people.

The really serious signs of grossly excessive inflation began to show themselves in the last quarter of last year and then we took the action that has already been explained. We asked the NIEC to consider ways and means of trying to organise an incomes and prices arrangement between the employers and the unions. We waited several months to see if success could be achieved. There was complete failure. The proposed increases in wages went far beyond what would be desirable if we were to try to contain the cost of living in 1971. Regrettably, we had to take action. However, as everyone knows we have left it open to the employers and trade unions to see if, after examining the situation, they can produce a formula that will make it unnecessary for the Government to enact or to make use of the sections of the Bill in which there can be a compulsory restraint on the growth of wages.

Everyone refers to this as a pay freeze: it is a pay pause. People have very short memories. I suppose it is natural enough that people whose standard of living has increased markedly do not remember what increases in wages they secured. If one suggests that an increase in wages of 6 per cent or 7 per cent is all the country can afford at present, would it not be wise to compare that with the fact that from 1964 to 1967 there was a total increase in earnings of about 20 per cent and that was roughly, 6 per cent per annum? If one looks at the suggestions in the Bill, as it was when it was first proposed, of what we shall call a 7 per cent increase in wages one might ask is that a ridiculously small increase in relation to the fact that between 1964 and 1967 earnings of workers went up by 20 per cent? People have very short memories. They seem to think this is a very tiny increase in remuneration.

If one goes back to 1961-1964 the total increase in earnings at that time was 28 per cent or roughly 9 per cent per annum. Is a proposal for an increase in wages of 6 per cent, 7 per cent or 8 per cent a desperately low proposal, when one looks back at what it was in those two periods of three years, 1961-1964 and 1964-1967? It is only fair to mention these things. The people should realise what this means in terms of restraint. The suggestion that an increase in incomes of 6 per cent or 7 per cent is something frighteningly small can only be made with reference to the very large increases which have taken place in 1968, 1969 and 1970, and which were not justified by the growth in productivity in the country.

Surely in the lifetime of this country and in the lifetime of the workers in industry in the country one can suggest a temporary period of pay pause when one looks at what the workers have actually succeeded in getting for themselves over the period of the past 12 years. If one compares the increase in earnings in manufacturing industry in this country with the typical group of European countries, and if we can say with certainty that there has been a very big increase in real living standards resulting from increases in earnings, surely then it is possible for us to suggest what we call a pause in the rapid growth of wages, or the reconsideration of the wage structure with a view to the workers being able to keep. what they get in large measure because the productivity growth will more or less equate with the wage grant. Surely if we ask them to do that we must at least reflect on what happened in the past 12 years. These are the increases in earnings in manufacturing industries from 1958 to the present date: in France, 148 per cent; in Germany, 154 per cent; in Belgium, 104 per cent for males and 131 per cent for females; in the Netherlands 169 per cent; in the United Kingdom, our neighbour, roughly 97 per cent; and in our country, 143 per cent. If one allows for the increase in the cost of living and looks at the increases in it which have taken place in those countries one sees that part of that increase only relates to whether the wage cost per unit of output increased in one country or another. Let us just take the British figures and our own figures. In the same period in which wages went up by between 95 and 99 per cent in the United Kingdom, the cost of living went up by 52 per cent. In the period when our earnings went up by 143 per cent the cost of living went up by 62 per cent. That would seem to show that there was absolutely no grossly excessive increase in profits or in prices in our country which uses the same currency, which trades with Great Britain, and which has close connections with Great Britain.

I would say that any reasonable person looking back at the real increase in living standards of 60 per cent over a period of nearly 12 years would accept, for the time being, a slightly smaller increase in wages and salaries in order to watch the effect on prices and in order to ensure a continued growth in employment and in prosperity in this country. If one takes the figures of earnings in manufacturing industry for 1964 to the latest date—and that latest date varies in different countries to six months, nine months, three months and a very recent period—they show equally that the workers succeeded in getting increases which were very comparable with those in other countries. Corresponding increases from 1964 to the present day were: France, 60 per cent; Germany, 51 per cent; Belgium, about 47 per cent; Netherlands, 68 per cent; United Kingdom, 40 per cent; and Ireland, 60 per cent. In the last four or five years there has been no sign that workers have not been able to gain increases in living standards. I might add in that connection that if one takes the increase in the cost of living in England as 40 per cent, the increase in earnings was 32 per cent. If one takes the increase in the cost of living in Ireland over the same period from 1964, as against an increase of earnings of 60 per cent, it was 38 per cent.

Would the Minister agree that the increase was on a base which was much lower in this country?

I will have to examine that in great detail. I am arguing that great progress has been made and that in the lifetime of an industrial worker or of anyone in the Civil Service or in any other vocation that, having gained that increase in living standards, it is reasonable to ask the community, for the time being, to watch the position carefully in order to see that the economy does not get out of hand. The Deputy knows I am telling the truth. I find that the majority of the people accept the kind of statement that I and my colleagues have made.

Because the Minister is giving part of the picture and not the whole picture.

If anybody wants to deny that there is a really serious position to be faced I would remind him that we place ourselves with the British as the countries with by far the highest wage cost increases per unit of output of practically all the countries in Europe. If one looks at the actual chart one will find that both we and the British, up to 1968, were still at the top of the list in increases in wage costs per unit of output, but one can see quite easily that the situation could have been contained, but then there was an absolute and complete runaway from 1968 onwards, which places ourselves and the British at the very top of the European table so that economists and politicians of all parties will be talking about it almost in the same voice in Great Britain and in this country. They will talk about this grossly excessive growth in wage costs per unit of output which has taken place since 1968 and which makes it necessary for us to think about what will happen in the future if it goes on. This wage cost per unit of output increase indicates that the increases in wages have played the major part in increasing prices in this and every other country.

Different system of price control, sometimes permanent, sometimes temporary, sometimes covering a very wide range of products, are established by the northern European countries at a time of crisis. If we look at the increase in prices in this country, either from 1958 or from 1964, and compare it with the increase of earnings and wages during either period and then compare the position in any northern European country at the time—and make allowance for how much the wage increase affected the cost of output of industry—it will be found that there is not the slightest title of evidence that prices flew away and increased here in a grossly excessive manner compared with other northern European countries. I defy anybody to go through the wage cost per unit of output and find evidence that, at any time in the past 12 years, there have been grossly increased profits in this country or that the salary levels of high executives show a tremendously inflated value as compared with the position obtaining in other countries with whom we compete or that the incomes of self-employed persons in the community increased so much as to constitute a social scandal within the community. Wages and salaries are the principal factors in determining prices.

Salaries of executives and dividends were included in costs as wages. We know that because we meet it every day in the Labour Court.

If the Deputy examines the records for the past 12 years he will find no evidence of a derogation of duty by the Government that allowed the cost of living to mount because of the element of profit increase or the element of price increase in the community.

In this Bill, the Government propose to take sterner action in regard to prices and to introduce limitations on dividends, rents and so on. We are asking the community to try a new experiment. What is the use if—not only in this country but in every country—you ask for an increase of, say, 12 per cent in wages and salaries while the production per worker goes up by only 5 or 6 per cent? From 1958 to 1961 the increase in earnings was 17 per cent. People asked for about 5 per cent per annum.

We have to get over the year 1971, which inevitably will be a difficult year because some of the increases in the cost of living as a result of 1970 rises will spill over into 1971. However, why not try an experiment which worked very well in, for example, Germany and the Netherlands? Why not ask in one year for 6 per cent or 7 per cent in the hope of keeping all but 1 per cent of it? In Sweden, there is a great deal of private enterprise but there is also a very high level of Government intervention in all sorts of social matters. If people would experiment as I have suggested they would find that their standard of living would go up, in the end, more rapidly and they would be able to save money.

Quite apart from savings made through legislation such as social insurance, I am satisfied that, in a modern community, everybody should save a little. We shall not be able to save if inflation continues. What is the use of asking for an increase in wage or salary which will result in a decrease in the value of savings? If savings are reduced, there will be less money for capital and social development. The whole community should move forward on the basis that price increases are kept at a reasonable level, that profits are not grossly excessive, that dividends are not grossly excessive and that in return increases of salaries and wages should be reasonable so that people could keep their pay packets, that they would be worth something to them, that the people would get into the habit of saving, knowing that the value of their money in five or six years will be worth something to them when they take it out of saving banks, saving certificates or out of any other form of investment in which they had put it.

It seems to me these statements are very obvious. They have been made in many countries that have faced this crisis and there is not any real, essential sociological difference between this country and other countries except that we are new in industrial development. We are far more dependent on exports than other countries because we have not got the raw materials and to that extent we are more vulnerable to inflation and to balance of payments deficits than countries which have ample raw materials or a greater volume of industries built up during 50 years. We have been prevented from doing that because of the circumstances of our history.

One of the things we have to be careful of is that every time another £1 circulates through inflation, of that £1, 8s 6d will be spent on imported goods. As I have said, we are in a very vulnerable position and we have to take great care of the economic situation, particularly when the point arises when it is made evident to everybody that there must be some severe action taken to curb inflation.

I think I ought to mention some really serious figures of wage cost increase per unit of output, because they indicate that both we and the British have got to face this problem of inflation. It is a problem common to both Britain and ourselves, although the solution need not be the same. From 1963 to date, the increase in unit of wage cost per unit of output has been 16 per cent in France, 11 per cent in Germany, 13 per cent in the USA, 24 per cent in the UK and 32 per cent in Ireland. That total increase in our case and in the case of the British might not have been so serious if the greater part of it had not taken place since 1968. In other words, from 1963 to 1968, although we still topped the list, we were in the position that we could continue to make progress; it is the enormous increase since 1968 that has placed us in the difficult position in which we now find ourselves.

A number of comments have been made here about the effect of the turnover tax on wage demands. I quite understand that it is only human for people to ask for an increase in wages if the turnover tax increases, but I am afraid we have to face the reality that taxes are not meant to be compensated for by increases in incomes: taxes are a deliberate gift from the people, voted in this House to be spent and transferred to the less well-off in the community, to educational, social and other services. That is a fact and there is no way out of it. If most of the taxes are levied and wages and salaries have gone up more than production per annum, the exercise is defeated, and every time someone adds 2½ per cent to his pay packet to compensate for a 2½ per cent increase in turnover tax, the only result is that the Government have to tax still more.

Is the Minister saying that the less well-off should have to contribute to the well-off?

I claim that our tax structure is fairly spread and that it is meant to be a gift that cannot be compensated for. It is a deliberate decision to provide money for social and economic purposes and, if people try to compensate themselves every time the turnover tax or income tax goes up, it will serve only to inflate still further the cost of Government and it will result in taxes being increased still more in order to find the necessary money. Taxation is supposed to be a contribution by the people for social and economic purposes and there is no way out of it.

I hope everybody realises that we are struggling with a problem that can be found in other countries in Europe and that has become particularly severe with us in the last two years. There is not any reason why we cannot overcome the problem and enjoy a resumption of normal economic growth provided people think intelligently and do not get into a little cocoon of their own and say that we can take action different from other countries when in fact every other country faces this problem. In the Netherlands and Sweden there has been a frightful form of credit control, a really severe cut down in house building, a cruel cut down, as a method of cooling the economy. We do not want to adopt that form of control. It was adopted in Sweden under a Labour Government because it seemed to be the only possible way of solving inflation and bringing it down to an economic level.

These countries have had to impose drastic credit control which we would not like to see happen here. Instead, we would like to see agreement between employers and unions for a rate of increase of salaries and wages that will not be lost in ever-increasing prices and that will enable the country to get on its feet.

The Minister said that the people should not get into little cocoons of their own. We are entitled to say that, as far as the Fianna Fáil Government are concerned, they have been in a cuckooland of their own during the past one and a half years. The Minister may be a good batsman but he has been on a very bad wicket. In the earlier part of his speech he said we did not wake up in time. I pity the Minister because he is the one member of the Government who has spent the past three or four years going around the country to Fianna Fáil dinners talking about rampant inflation and how it would cripple us. He has asked the workers to act; he calls upon anybody but the people who should take action, the Government.

Therefore, it must have been difficult for a man like the Minister to come in here and admit that that advice he gave so solemnly during the past few years was not acted on by his colleagues. There were good reasons, of course. They had their own trouble. This type of speech, however, is not good enough from the Minister. Fianna Fáil are supposed to be the Government and in the interests of the people it was they who should have taken action when it was necessary. If that had been done, the Minister need not have come in now and admitted that the Government did not wake up in time and did not take action when it was necessary. The Government are, as Deputy Desmond said, a non-Government. They were sitting back, doing nothing, taking things easy.

The Deputy is expressing a lot of criticism of the things we are not doing. That is very strange, if we are supposed to be doing nothing.

We are trying to get them to do something. We preached this to them five years ago, and they rejected it.

How do you oppose non-action?

There is plenty of action in the Fianna Fáil Party. Do not give me that. Were they not trying to import guns?

Non-action.

They were trying to import guns and it is quite easy to oppose that. To give the Minister credit, he was the first person in the Fianna Fáil Party who tried to expose those things because he talked in Galway in August, 1967 or 1968——

Non-opposition.

——about low standards in high places. What is wrong is that there was too much action, perhaps, by certain members of the Government in the wrong direction. The action was not aimed at giving good Government and stable Government in the interests of the people. It was aimed at bringing ruin and destruction and civil war to the Irish people. We abhor that and we will oppose that type of action as we have opposed it for the past 50 years.

Let it be admitted that we have a first-class Civil Service. They saved us in this crisis which I mentioned. Even if the Government had not got information, surely they had civil servants to supply them with the information. They knew all the trends. They had the necessary information but, despite that, the Government refused to take action in time.

The Minister told us in his concluding remarks that 1971 will be a hard year and that we will have to get over it. What we have to do is get rid of Fianna Fáil as quickly as we can. We have been hearing for too long from the Fianna Fáil Party that the nation is going up the hill, rounding the corner, breasting the hill, but she has never got to the top of the hill.

Neither did Fine Gael.

We were told long ago that we should judge the Government on the figures for emigration and employment but 1,250,000 people have been driven from this country by Fianna Fáil since they took office in 1932. They cannot deny that. The Minister may smile and you can prove anything with figures but there are— and we got the figures last May—65,000 fewer people at work today than there were in 1957. Can the Minister deny that?

Tell us the number who emigrated last year?

So long as they have the safety valve of emigration to Britain, the Minister's Government can sit back idly and do nothing. Mr. de-Valera, the President, and Mr. Lemass, stated at one time that a Government's financial policy down through the years should be judged on the number of people employed and how the problem of emigration was solved. Therefore, they must admit that their policy has been a complete failure.

The Minister also asked: why not try experiments? What is wrong with this country is that Fianna Fáil tried too many experiments of the wrong type and they were a failure. What we want now is a period of good Government and stable Government so that our industrialists and farmers and workers can plan ahead for the competitive period that lies ahead.

The Minister also wanted to know what alternative proposals the Opposition had. I can answer that as Mr. Lemass answered it one time when they were in Opposition: you are in power now and it is your responsibility.

This is what the public want to hear from the Fine Gael Party.

The Minister's Government were the cause of the present trouble and it is their duty to get out. In 1965 we published a prices and incomes policy in our policy document, the Just Society. Anybody can read it. The NIEC, the Congress of Trade Unions, the chambers of commerce and other organisations down through the years warned the Government. They were prepared to co-operate in doing something tangible but the Government sat back and did nothing. That is what has this country in the mess it is in today.

The Minister went on to say that there was a crisis in Britain, a crisis in Sweden and a crisis in other countries throughout the world. In 1956 and 1957 there was a financial crisis in this country at the end of the Korean war; there was an economic crisis in Britain and in other countries throughout the world; and the costs of our exports were decreasing and the costs of our imports were increasing violently. We were then selling our cattle at £4 a cwt. Today they are £10 a cwt. So far as export prices are concerned things are going in our favour but still, through neglect, the Government have got us into this position.

The Minister said that, human nature being what it is, the Government had to wait until the last moment. It is certainly human nature that has us in the crisis we are in today because the Government had their own internal problems and they neglected the problems of the nation. Fianna Fáil talk about human nature but they were anxious only to save their own party, to keep their own party united, to keep their hands as near to the loot as possible, and to hell with the country and to hell with the economy. That is what has been happening in this country for the past year.

The Minister said the people should understand and realise that these problems are arising in this country and in other countries. It is very hard to expect the ordinary people to understand them if a Government with one of the best Civil Services in the world could not understand them until it was almost too late. Indeed, the fact that this Bill is necessary is a further indication of grave dereliction of duty by the Government. Nobody can deny that during the past few years the Irish nation has been tossing about like a boat on the ocean, rudderless, leaderless, with each member of the Government running his own show. That was proved recently in the trials. It was all done to the detriment of our people.

The Minister admitted here today that they waited until the last moment. It should be pointed out to the Government that: Ní hé lá na gaoithe lá na scolb. They are now closing the stable door when the horse may be far down the road. The Government may not mind that but the ordinary people, the poor, people who are not very well able to look after themselves, will suffer hardship due to the inflation which is upon us. We are entitled to ask: when the Government waited for so long, could they not have waited a little longer? This Bill is very ill-timed because having waited so long, the Government introduce it at a time when the trade unions and the other organisations are coming together to try to work out a voluntary solution. There is an old saying that the Irish can be led but not driven. The Minister and the Government may now do untold harm by waving the big stick over their heads.

The Minister for Finance said:

...I should reassert the objective towards which the Government has consistently aimed.

We should all love to know what objective the Government have consistently aimed at. He also said:

The Bill makes it crystal clear that the Government has not deviated by one iota from that principle.

As far as this legislation is concerned is it not true that about a month ago the Government introduced measures and we were told they were final? They were attacked the next day by Fine Gael and Labour and a day or so later by Deputy Charles Haughey. The Government gave way immediately on the 12th round. The Minister then said that was final. A week afterwards, because there was a danger of a general election, the Government changed their minds. The Parliamentary Secretary may shake his head, but they certainly did. Even the Taoiseach went down to Cork last Tuesday and said that the fact that the Government changed their minds did not mean they were a weak Government. We know that those who excuse themselves very often accuse themselves, and in this case the Taoiseach was certainly accusing himself because they are a very weak Government by any standards. They are dithering, changing their minds, not knowing what to do next. They are standing idly by when they should be giving proper leadership.

What is the use of the Minister for Health or the Minister for Finance asking the people to understand when the Government themselves do not understand where they are going? How can the people plan ahead when the Government do not know where they are going? All this is tragic for the Irish people. We are entitled to ask: where is the resolute leadership we have been told about and where are the plans for the grand future for the Irish people? We have nothing today but political expediency and the country is indeed suffering. The nation and our finances have been allowed to drift from bad to worse by Ministers, some of whom are unfortunately more interested in tearing down the institutions of this State than in building up its financial viability. The Government are meddlers and muddlers as far as our financial affairs are concerned. They have deceived the nation, and that is wrong. They have proved to be incompetent, and that is damaging to our nation and to our people. They have lost the confidence of the world by their carry-on, and that is humiliating. Already the damage done to our economy has been severe; indeed, it could be irreparable. It is reckoned that, due to the folly of some ex-Ministers, we may have lost £20 million on tourism alone this year.

The Government knew for a long time that we were in the midst of inflation. It is opportune to ask what has created the serious financial position in which we are today. There can be only one answer and that is the deliberate inflationary policy this Government have pursued over the years. They have pursued an open inflationary policy despite the fact that the evils that would ensue from such a policy were pointed out from this side of the House —pointed out by Mr. Dillon when he was leader of this party and when he was a member of this party, pointed out by Deputy Cosgrave and pointed out even by the Minister for Health and by Mr. Seán MacEntee on many occasions. The Government continued on their merry way, not heeding the warnings they were given. At present we are pricing ourselves not alone out of the British and the European market but also out of our own home market. If one goes into a supermarket in this city today one finds that 50 or 60 per cent of what is being sold is made in Britain, Japan or some country. If that trend is allowed to continue it will be bad for everyone in the country. This is the road to economic disaster. The time has come to launch a national campaign to bring this danger home to everybody. If this continues we are slowly but surely committing hara-kiri.

Again, is was the Government's duty to point this out, to give the lead and they have failed to do it in the past. It is the Government's duty to govern, to control the economy, to balance one factor against another. They are the only people who know the facts. It is their duty to avoid successions of boom and slump. They have failed to do that. They took a gambler's chance on numerous occasions to win elections. Political expediency has been their guiding star in the past and the more we look at the sorry history of this country over the past six or seven years the more we realise the Government's responsibility for our present trouble. On their heads alone rests the responsibility.

There is an obligation on any political party which seeks office to tell the people the truth, not to mislead them, not to fool them and to tell the people how they will use the power entrusted to them. Things are bad and we are facing a crisis today. It will be very hard to get the people to believe anything from any member of the Government——

Hear, hear.

——when one remembers the sorry sight recently in the Four Courts of one Minister swearing one thing and another swearing another thing.

That has nothing to do with the Bill before the House.

These people have been described by the Taoiseach as able, brilliant, intelligent people. How can one trust Ministers appointed by the same man? If they were brilliant, able and intelligent and if they have lowered standards in this country can we expect anything better from other men appointed by the same Taoiseach? In the words of Mr. Gerry Boland, if you take a man in off the street now it seems you can make him a Minister in an Irish Government. We have the same leadership. If the Taoiseach was so wrong in his judgment in the past about these men, if his judgment has proved to be such a failure in the past, how can anybody say that it is any better at present? It would be very hard to convince the Irish people otherwise.

All the troubles we have today go back to 1963 when the turnover tax was imposed. We know that the Government at that time purchased votes. Then, as well as recently, we had low standards in Irish politics. They purchased the votes of certain people. We remember the Taoiseach at that time pointing out to the people that we were facing a crisis. He called upon State-sponsored organisations, trade unions, to make no more demands for higher wages until we increased production and exports. The majority of the trade unionists are responsible people and that call invoked a reasonable response from those people at that particular time. We had stability and wage demands and strikes were less for a year or two.

Then the Government introduced the turnover tax and for the first time in the history of this country we had a tax imposed on bread, butter, tea, sugar, meat, fuel and all the essentials of life. Fine Gael, the Labour Party and the trade unions pointed out the bad effects of this ill-conceived policy. At that time we pointed out how a tax on the necessaries of life was bound to increase the cost of living, how it would kindle the flames of inflation with all its harmful effects and that it would do irreparable harm. Unfortunately, all our forecasts were proved right. There was a sudden jump in prices and the cost of living started to rise. While the Government had their call for restraint the worker's pay packet was not going as far as before. Fianna Fáil speakers in this House and elsewhere argued that the turnover tax would only have a minimal effect on prices. We are entitled to ask if Fianna Fáil were so innocent as to believe that the restraint called for could be maintained in the conditions of higher prices which the turnover tax created. It was a major tactical error and it was the starting point of the present chaos.

The next move made by the Government was a clever political one. The deaths of two TDs suddenly closed the gap. The Government were facing two by-elections. The Minister for Health spoke earlier about human nature in a different context but here was the threat to Fianna Fáil. Remember, when the threat comes, they close their ranks; then as now they put party before country. The gap was immediately closed and Seán Lemass said: "It is all right boys. Everyone can get 12½ per cent. We want a free for all. We must win the two by-elections to keep Fianna Fáil in power." They gave the 12½ per cent, won the two by-elections and Fianna Fáil struggled on in power.

Immediately after they won the two by-elections the Taoiseach switched horses and he proceeded to sound dire warnings through the spring and summer of 1964. He said the 12½ per cent was more than they should have given. He said that productivity and exports would have to go up to cover the increases and there must be no more wage demands. We are entitled to blame the Government alone for the plight we are in today.

We have had three doses of stop-go in the last ten years. We had one in 1963 and another in 1964. Now let us come to March, 1969. Deputy Haughey went on television at that time and he told the people that we were facing an economic crisis. He announced that things were so serious that Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries were accepting a 15 per cent cut in their salaries. I wonder if that cut is there yet or when it was restored. At that time they said that the people would have to tighten their belts, that we were facing an inflationary period and we were in another crisis. This got a bad reception from the Irish people. The Government realised that if they continued making those types of speeches they would not win the general election of that year. They changed horses again and we had an inflationary Budget on 7th May, 1969. We had a complete somersault. The Government again put party before country to win an election. They won that election.

In May of this year we had another cruel imposition of taxation in the Budget which placed an additional £20 million on an already overtaxed community. The turnover tax was increased from 2½ per cent to 5 per cent. Speaker after speaker pointed out in this House that the effect of the increase in the turnover tax would mean that the cost of production and the cost of living would increase. There were various figures given of 12 per cent, 15 per cent and even 17 per cent.

All that was pointed out to the Government but they paid no heed to it. We now know that since that time bus fares have been increased and the price of stamps has been increased. There was no standstill as far as stamps or the CIE increases were concerned. They got wind of certain things happening and they got away with their increases scot-free. In some cases the increases which have occurred are 25 per cent and in some cases 33 per cent.

History has proved again and again that the Irish people will endure almost any hardship if they have a clear and desirable object in view. We are entitled to ask today: where is the leadership? Where is the Government governing in the interests of the people? Where is the vision without which the people perish? Where now are the leaders in the Fianna Fáil Party who will restore to us a sense of national pride and purpose? The answers to those questions will not be supplied by the discredited and, indeed, the demoralised crew which today passes for the Government of this unfortunate nation. Their nationalistic ideals have been put in the deep freeze along with their guns or they have been overthrown long ago. It can be said of this Government that in every financial crisis they seem to see no further than their noses.

The Minister for Health, appealing to the Opposition and the people to understand the crisis through which we are going, tried to tell the people that there were crises in Britain, Sweden and in other countries. As a constructive Opposition with the national interest at heart we have not only the right but the duty to ask ourselves what lasting value we have got from the Government's financial policies. If, as a result of the financial policy of the Government over the years and if as a result of the vast outlay of public money and the growing burden of taxation, we were in a position to say that emigration had stopped or that unemployment had been substantially reduced—and it has not but has gone up by a further 10,000 last year— there would be some ground for satisfaction. So far from this being the case, we have exported 400,000 people, the cream of the country, taking only the last 13 years, and they are still going at the rate of 25,000 per year. As the Taoiseach told me in answer to a question last May, there are 65,000 fewer people at work now than there were in 1951. The Government should remember that if we had not the safety valve of emigration to Britain we would be in a very poor state indeed. If we added to the 64,000 we have unemployed today the 400,000 that emigrated in the last 12 or 13 years, we would have 500,000 people unemployed today.

When the Minister appeals for our support it might be no harm to remind him of the type of support Fianna Fáil gave to other Governments in other times in this country. The founder of Fianna Fáil, who is now the President, had this to say in 1929 when the Government had to take certain action, and I quote from the Official Report:

We are pulling at the tail of England and being dragged to inflation or deflation according as it suits British commercial policy.

I wonder what he would have to say now. When the Minister, Deputy Childers, calls for the support of the Opposition and the understanding of the people we are entitled to remind him of what a former Minister for Finance, Mr. Seán MacEntee, had to say in the Sunday Press of 13th November, 1949, when our Government had to devalue the £ along with Britain. The article was headed: Diddle Dum Dandy or What deflation has done to your £. He finished by saying:

The Government are dooming the Irish people to go down with the British ship.

This is the type of help that past Governments got from members of the Fianna Fáil Party when they were in similar difficulties. They tried to create all the trouble they possibly could. They tried to divide us in every way they could from Britain, which the Minister admitted today is one of our best customers. Of course, things have changed. The Minister for Finance yesterday talked about Fianna Fáil consistency, but looking back over the past you find they have been consistent in one thing only and that is in their inconsistency, having broken all the financial and other promises they made to the country down through the years. It would be very amusing to read this article in full but I shall just quote another sentence from Mr. MacEntee in 1949:

Devaluation has made us very much poorer than we should have been and this country much more difficult to live in.

The Fianna Fáil Party can be thankful that there is a much more constructive Opposition here today who will not harry the Government in that way. However, we are entitled to point out their faults. We have no leadership at the present time. We have no proper Government. Nero fiddles while Rome burns. The Government, intent on their own power struggle within the party, have not got the time or the inclination to govern in the interests of the Irish people.

It can also be stated that a flabby cost structure has been inflated like a balloon due to deliberate action by the Government, and there is a serious danger of the collapse of the balloon. It cannot be denied that the Government's policy has been calculated to raise prices and costs. What the people want today more than ever is a period of stability and a period of good government, not the Government's stop-go policy leading to financial disaster. We have not got that up to the present and it is very doubtful if we shall ever get it until there is a change of Government.

We advocated an incomes policy away back in 1965, but it was turned down by the Fianna Fáil Party. We were told at the time that it was a lazy man's policy. We believed then that with a properly-run incomes policy everyone would get a fair share of the national cake. Let us admit that at the present time, especially when inflation is rampant, the weaker sections are going to the wall. When there is inflation the poor suffer and the rich grow richer. Fianna Fáil have forty shades of republicanism—I hear they have selected a Mr. Delap, a Blaney republican to contest the election in Donegal—but when they talk of their different types of republicanism they should remember that those who died in 1916 died so that a Government would be elected that would cherish all the children of the nation equally. This Government are not doing that, and as long as they allow inflation to run rampant, as it has, they are further affecting the lives and livelihood of the poorer sections of our people.

The Minister spoke at length today about the whole European situation, about Sweden, England, West Germany and many other countries. I agree that when we look at the European situation today we must admit, while the overall economic position may not be critical, it is serious, but not as serious as it is in this country. Absolute care is needed in the planning of national investments. There is no scope for extravagance in Government spending. The Government should set the headline; while they have talked often about doing so in the past they have never set a proper headline. The Government must tell the people the truth. They must take the people into their confidence if there is such a thing as political confidence now. Political credibility has been severely shattered during the last fortnight. Many people were ashamed to find out that, in spite of what one member of the party said about another, when all was said and done they came together to save their own necks.

It is up to the Government to take the people into their confidence. They fooled the people at the by-elections in 1963 and 1964. We had an inflationary Budget in 1965 in order to win that election. We had an inflationary Budget to try to win the referendum, but the Government were defeated; and we had an inflationary Budget in 1969 in an effort to win that election. People do not like mentioning Churchill in this House but he won the war for Britain because he told the British people the plain truth. The time has come for Fianna Fáil to tell the people the truth. We have had three bouts of stop-go from Fianna Fáil during the last ten years. The mink wrap that we had last year to win the election is about to be replaced, according to what the Minister for Health and the Minister for Finance have said, by a hair shirt. If Fianna Fáil misgovernment continues there no end in sight to the unpopular measures which may have to be taken by this Government or some other Government to avoid the downhill road to bankruptcy.

I do not know what the Deputy is quoting from but to continue his logic of by-elections and general elections I would remind him that two by-elections are pending. The Deputy's logic has gone out of gear.

No, my logic has not gone out of gear. The Minister admitted this evening that it was only when national disaster and bankruptcy faced us that the Government took any action. The Minister was apologetic. In fact his speech could be described as "Why we did not wake up in time". Things were allowed to drift on and on because of the internal troubles in the party until in the end action had to be taken. One of the reasons action is being taken now is because many wage agreements will expire at the end of 1970. I doubt if this is being done in the country's interest. If the Government had their way they would certainly wait until the spring, but with the internal troubles the Government are no doubt afraid that they might split in two at the Ard-Fheis. Knowing they will lose the two by-elections anyway no matter what happens, the Government have decided to act now and get it all over with. When the Government were defeated in the referendum they introduced a supplementary Budget immediately afterwards in order to get it all over with at the same time and this is exactly what is happening now. Fianna Fáil have changed horses so often in the past——

We shall soon be running out of horses.

One thing is certain, we do not fall off them.

The Deputy has used a number of horses since he started speaking.

Fianna Fáil are running out of horses. They must blame themselves for sacrificing long-term policies for short-term expedients. That is what has us in this position today.

The only way to save the country is for the Government, who have got our financial affairs into such chaos, to go before the only jury that counts, not a jury in the Four Courts but the electorate. If they go before that jury they will get a rude awakening. In their place will be a Government with a proper, sound financial policy that will govern in the interests of the people.

When this Bill was first announced it looked as though it was going to be a tremendous affair. The headline in the Irish Times of Saturday, 17th October, stated, “Government imposes 6 per cent limit on wages”. On that Saturday the Minister roared like a lion and, just as some of his opponents in the Fianna Fáil Party roared like lions and subsequently came into this House and trotted through the lobbies like lambs, so the Minister for Finance is now trotting through this House like a lamb.

The Deputy is a black sheep.

Has the Deputy spoken yet?

I am to speak next.

I shall wait to hear the Deputy because I owe him a debt or two.

When the Minister made his announcement on Friday, 16th October, he spoke as if he was going to do something effective. The trade unions were never misled. They knew the Government would give the 12th round because that is the way the Fianna Fáil Party operates. They state that they are going to cut off both legs and afterwards they cut off only one leg. One is supposed to feel much better about that. I can give numerous instances of this system down through the years. The Parliamentary Secretary cannot deny that time and again the Fianna Fáil Party have threatened to do the most dreadful things and it always turns out to be not so severe.

We have all these arithmetical economics. I received an answer to a parliamentary question yesterday which exposes the nature of these arithmetical economics. I asked the Minister for Finance why the Government had to borrow £25 million from the Irish commercial banks in March of this year at 8½ per cent interest; and whether he considered this a proper rate for a conversion stock maturing in 1973. The Minister replied: "The transaction to which the Deputy refers formed part of the financing of the Public Capital Programme 1969-70...". This means that £25 million was being borrowed in March, 1970, to finance the capital programme for 1969-70, a programme which ended at the end of that month. The Minister went on, "... which is set out in the Capital Budget, 1970. The £25 million 8½ per cent Conversion Stock, 1973, was purchased by the banks on 31st March, 1970, at 98? giving a yield to redemption of £8 19s which was in line with the yields of three-year stocks at that time."

It is one thing to borrow money from people who save it but it is a completely different thing to ask the banks to write up money in their books. It is no trouble for the banks. It only requires a single transaction through the banks standing committee and they divide it out. Each bank makes an entry in its books. The only costs to the banks are the costs of the cheques as they come back and the cost in the nature of interest on the amount of that money which will go into deposits. Of course, the real rate —unless you are anxious to give the commercial banks 200 per cent profit —is about 2½ per cent for that kind of money. It is something of that order. I am talking of the real rate, not the commercial rate. The Minister subsequently said it was the going rate at the time. I have been accused in this House of being conservative and a Tory, but I am not a Tory in this matter for a most serious reason: it is part of the policy of the Labour Party to make money available for housing.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

The Government for the second time last year "borrowed" £25 million from the commercial banks. The first £25 million was borrowed at 7½ per cent in October, 1969, but they went one better in March, 1970, when they borrowed another £25 million at 8½ per cent, a short-term loan for three years. At the very most, the cost to the banks would be 2½ per cent. What kind of kiddie Government have we got, a lot of children running the country, youngsters who cannot even do that piece of financing to save themselves from what is facing them? This has been said about them time and again. They are a lot of children.

The Deputy was in Government and did not get money at 2½ per cent.

We never paid 8½ per cent or anything like it.

You did not pay 2½ per cent. You would not get it, anyway.

Yes, we did pay 2½ per cent and got it and we could have got £50 million in London when the Government could only get £250,000 out of the £5 million they sought a few years ago.

The Parliamentary Secretary should go back to his constituency which is becoming a desert.

Interruptions are disorderly.

I shall not be put off the lesson that I am going to teach Fianna Fáil Deputies.

The Deputy might deflate——

The Deputy will not deflate much.

You will be deflated in a couple of weeks' time.

There is a section in this Bill which says that interest rates are to be kept at the same level. Does that mean that although interest rates are going down all over the world the Irish banks will be allowed to continue to charge 9½ per cent for ordinary accommodation, giving them at least 100 per cent profit? Is this why the Government would not put an end to the bank closure this year? Is this the real reason the Government were backing the bank directors? Is it because of the support by subscriptions they get from these people?

That is a disgraceful allegation.

Is it now? The poor west Cork men are so simple that they cannot put up with an allegation like that. Is it suggested the Fianna Fáil Party are not supported by the moneyed classes?

(Interruptions.)

It is not the Labour Party which gets the big subscriptions from the millers, bankers and so on. We would not pay them 8½ per cent for making a few entries in their books. That is certain.

You would not have them there.

There are countries in which part of the banking system is nationalised and part is not, such as France, and there are countries where the whole banking system is nationalised. There are countries like the United States where it is an entirely free enterprise. Which does Deputy Crowley want?

Free enterprise.

Of course, Deputy Crowley will have free enterprise.

(Interruptions.)

In other words, he will have a situation where the wealthy can line their pockets and you will have an efforts made, as was made here until they came up against a stone wall, to pillory the unfortunate men trying to keep up with the cost of living, the ordinary working man. That is what Deputy Crowley and Fianna Fáil will go in for.

(Interruptions.)

If it came to working with my hands I could work as well as Deputy Crowley. Let us try it some time and see which of us will cry halt first.

Go down to my garden.

The land is easier to work in South Tipperary than in west Cork. Take the difference between 2½ per cent and 7½ or 8½ per cent on £50 million which is what it was for the year. It will be another £50 million this year. We have heard all this claptrap about growth but you create growth this way, arithmetical growth. It is not real growth. Like all games it worked for a while, but now the game is up. You write up £50 million in the books of the banks and you get only a percentage of it into the economy. When you keep on doing this year after year you end up in the mire and that is where the Government party have put the country. I do not mind what sneers are thrown at me from the Government side of the House. I am going to advocate a cessation of wasteful and extravagant expenditure and I hope the Government will not go to the country for two or three years so that I can continue advocating it. I have no guilt complex about it.

The Deputy will lose his seat anyway.

The Parliamentary Secretary should stay quiet. This is a serious debate. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will lose his seat.

(Interruptions.)

Let me give an example of this kind of thing. You got the banks to make entries in their books to the tune of £50 million last year. This is creation of money just the same as printing £1 notes. It is quite different from getting people to save or something like that. Yet the Government have the demand arrogance and impertinence to come into this House and talk about the people creating inflation. It was damned cheek of the Minister to produce the kind of brief the Minister produced here the other day. Of course, all this is just a fiddle-de-dee; this Bill will have no importance; it will be quite ineffective. When Deputy Haughey cracked the whip—Deputy Haughey is a past master at this game because he understands it; I doubt if the present Minister does—the Minister scuttled for shelter—will anyone deny it? —just like the Deputies who roared like lions one weekend and trooped into the lobby a few days later like lambs. That kind of thing leaves me cold.

Lest anyone might think I am exaggerating, let me take just one figure. Expenditure by the Government on current services was £411 million last year. We were told in the mini-Budget speech—the Minister was quite straight about it—that expenditure this year is £491 million; in other words, expenditure is £80 million more. How is this brought about? The doubling of the turnover tax created inflation. Every action of this Government creates inflation. Go back to the mini-Budget of 1968 which created 1 per cent inflation per month for three months. But Deputy Haughey had nous and he understood the effect of it and he was not going to make the mistake of doing it again. The increase in current expenditure is as near as may be to an increase of 20 per cent on current services. We are all supposed then to crawl around on our hands and knees when we represent the ordinary workers because they ask for 20 per cent. Why do the Government not give the country some lead by a proper realisation of things? The party of reality! I think everyone here knows what I think about a prices and incomes policy.

We would like to hear what it is.

The late Deputy Pádraig Lenihan and I used to agree wholeheartedly on this: a prices and incomes policy is just so much rot in this kind of economy. Do the Government want to set up a Soviet or a Fascist state?

The Deputy wants a Soviet one.

I do not want anything that interferes with the liberty of the people and the Deputy knows that as well as I do. One of the funniest things in the Minister's opening speech was when he said the NIEC reported unanimously—he underlined the word "unanimously"—in favour of taking steps. The NIEC consist of 29 people. Strangely enough, they have issued 27 reports; 26 of them were unanimous and the only one which was not unanimous was the one the Minister said was unanimous. There is to it an addendum by the members related to the Federated Union of Employers. Yet, the Minister underlined the word "unanimous" in his brief. He and his bloody staff could not even do that much of their job properly. It appears on the second page of the copy of the brief supplied to us:

Our hopes—as set out in the Third Programme—that a proper institutional framework would enable unions and employers to work out arrangements on pay which would be consistent with the national interest were encouraged by the unanimous adoption by the National Industrial Economic Council of a Report on Incomes and Prices Policy....

I am now demonstrating that they produced 27 reports and 26 were unanimous and this was the only one that was not unanimous.

I want to deal with certain other aspects of this. I have seen this happen so often. Mr. Seán Lemass used talk about it away back in 1947. We had a Supplementary Budget; that is what it was called at that time. It put taxes sky high. The inter-Party Government came in and they abolished the whole blooming lot of them and nothing happened. That was far and away the best Government we had since the war. No other Government compares with it. Mr. Seán Lemass was talking about what a dreadful four years we were going to have. In fact we had three perfect years until Mr. MacEntee produced his first effort on 1st April, 1952 —All Fools' Day, a very appropriate day. It took years to get rid of the effect of that from the economy.

The whole purpose of this is to get back to what was known officially as the Standstill Order on Wages which was in operation during the war years. It was known to the ordinary people as the "Low Wages Order". That is what is involved in this Bill. This is an effort to get back to the "Low wages Order". Of course, that will not happen and the Government know that as well as I do. This is so much window-dressing. It is fake. During the war years I saw the tram drivers and conductors on the Terenure line literally disappearing before my eyes, getting thinner and thinner for want of decent food, and that in a country which was exporting vast quantities of food in exchange for paper to a country where the people were properly fed although they were engaged in a war. A man said to me: "The children here look worse fed and are worse dressed than the children in England". He was no member of the Soviet or anything else. He was not even a member of the working classes.

There is another side to this. Part of this brief deals with the price of houses. What method does the Minister adopt to control the price of houses? Let me tell you what it is: he increases the wholesale tax on caravans and mobile homes by 5 per cent. This will put the price up from 15 to 20 per cent. This is controlling the price of houses á la Fianna Fáil. Every Deputy who goes out the country sees these mobile homes all along the roads because people cannot afford anything else. These will now be put up in price by a wholesale tax of 5 per cent and the retail price will go up by 8 or 10 per cent. That is this Government's method of controlling the price of houses. Do not talk to me about how they will control permanent houses. Deputy Dowling has been saying that I said we created world inflation. No, I said we are leading the world in inflation. We have more inflation here today than there is in any other country except one of the banana republics in South America.

What interests me very much about this reference to the NIEC and their reports is the fact that there was an earlier report which was not called a report on prices and incomes at all; it was Report No. 11 and it had some worthwhile suggestions. It was a report on the economic situation in 1965. That was when we had a real financial crisis and when the Fianna Fáil Government went all over the world looking for a few pounds. In Report No. 11, which dealt with the economic situation, there were specific suggestions for a prices and incomes policy. Report No. 27 is a miserable report. It is full of what I can only call "goody-goody" talk—the kind of talk we had from Deputy Gus Healy yesterday inferring that if only everyone were good all things would be perfect in the world. I am not going to bother myself with Report No. 27. As I have already said, a group of 27 men who could produce 27 unanimous reports are not worth the attention of any serious person. The Labour Party have warned the country about the effects of our possible entry into the EEC——

Tread very carefully.

I do not have to talk carefully. The House knows my views. We will never be in the EEC, and if it ever happens the Deputy can remind me of what I said.

Explain the courtship then.

We will never enter the EEC because Britain will not enter the Community. When the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement was signed this party opposed it. We voted against it and said it was a sell-out. I said that we sold the long-term interests of this country across the Irish Sea for short term advantage. One of the major causes of the huge increase in unemployment this year is that agreement and there is no question about that. This was the year when the tariffs were reduced by half and the squeeze was felt. We were once joined in the same way with Britain for 120 years and we know the effect on our industries. The present Government have sold out this country. Yesterday I raised the matter of the sale of £5 million worth of gold. Mr. MacEntee spoke about gold ounces on a famous occasion. In his first Budget he spoke about the effects of the devaluation of sterling in 1931. Deputy L'Estrange said he spoke again about the devaluation of sterling in 1949.

One of the most foolish things done this year was the sale of our small gold reserves by the Central Bank of Ireland. Yesterday, in reply to a supplementary question, the Minister said it was done to get the interest on the money. He said that the gold was sold because you do not get any interest on it. In addition, it was sold out at the official rate to the International Monetary Fund and within a few months it was selling at $38 or $39 per ounce —about 20 per cent higher. In a few years time it will be apparent to everybody just how foolish was this action.

Last night Deputy Andrews said that there was not any reduction in wage packets as a result of this Bill. There is no immediate reduction but that will not be the case if inflation continues and so far as the Minister for Finance is concerned there is no question but that inflation will continue. The language in the Minister's brief is just so much window-dressing.

The Minister has said that if certain things are done the economy will be given time to absorb the 12th round increases. Does the Minister tell us how much time? There is an insinuation that it will be over by the 31st December, 1971. There is also a suggestion in the Minister's brief that until now the Government were not serious about the control of prices. It is stated that the Government tried to do this by exhortation and by a stricter application of existing price control. In Government administration there is no such thing as "a stricter application". It is done and that is that. The late Dr. James Ryan was an exponent of such a point of view and it is a view for which any sensible person must have some regard. What I am objecting to are all the pretences inherent in this approach.

In the Minister's brief reference is made to the Financial Resolutions, which the Dáil approved on the 28th October, and the other steps the Government have announced to cut-back the deficit on the current Budget and to moderate the rise in public expenditure. Expenditure this year will be £491 million as against £411 million last year. If that is moderation, I hope I never see the Government really going to town. I should also like to refer to the Title of the Bill which reads "An Act...for the purpose of safeguarding the economy, in the national interest, from the present serious dangers threatening it,..." I do not know what these serious dangers are except such dangers as come from the Government. When the workers woke up to the fact that the two year periods between wage rounds meant that for the last eight or nine months their standard of living was at bed-rock level they said, "We will make provision for that in our demands for compensation". I think they were right and I do not believe that at any stage have they got excessive compensation. However, I know of the various tactics that have been tried. This year a suggestion was made that the period be extended to three years. This tactic worked on one occasion when the period was extended to 2½ years by a process of delaying action. The ordinary person will not put up with such a state of affairs nowadays.

The situation is handled differently in other countries. In Sweden there is a wage change at the beginning of each year. In this country we have many wiseacres coming up with super ideas. It is a super idea to ask the workers: "Will you stick with the present wages for another year and let the chancers line their pockets still more? Give the fellows with the Mercedes more money and let them get all the advantages from the inflation that is rampant in this country." It is never more rampant than when the Government stick their fingers into the pie, whether it be the mini-Budget of 1968 or the last Budget that doubled the turnover tax. The mini-Budget we have just had at least has the advantage that it will not be as inflationary as the mini-Budget of 1968.

The level of the 12th round increase is referred to by the Minister. He has stated that it is bound to worsen the economy's competitive position. I have said repeatedly that the bulk of our exports have little or no wage content. This cannot be denied. It is absolutely true. The wage content of our exports is relatively small. Therefore, the effect of wages on the competitive position of our exports is relatively small. The report of the NIEC published in April, 1970, proposed a new institutional arrangement designed to help achieve a closer relation between increases in money incomes and increases in national production. I have the greatest contempt for the macro-economists because they do not include anything a farmer does for himself, nor do they include anything a woman does in her own home, whereas if she takes her family out for a meal in a restaurant they include the full price of the meal, while in the home they merely include the prices of the meat and the vegetables. If this is supposed to be reality, I am glad I live in a world of unreality.

The Deputy said it.

It could not be said too often in this debate that these figures which have been produced are fraudulent and faked. Every time the Government get the banks to write up credits in their books they create more and more inflation. Until they stop doing this they will put the country in jeopardy. It is a continuous sell-out of the country.

We had the argument about our exports. It has been said that our exports are doing better this year than last year, percentagewise. Deputy Davern is grinning in a manner which suggests that "alone we did it all". That is not the point. I am dealing with the argument which came from the Minister for Health. I was not actually in the House but I am sure it came from the Minister because he is always talking about it. His argument was that if we are not careful we will not be able to export anything. The Minister made just such a speech every weekend during the spring, 1965, before the election. The Minister does not know anything about macro-economics. I know it all right, and I have nothing but contempt for it. It is a pretence at arithmetical accuracy and factual accuracy, but is not true. Real economics is one thing, but these arithmetical economics are just rubbish. In his speech the Minister says:

This could have been disastrous. As a result of the phasing of 12th round agreements, total non-agricultural wages and salaries were expected to increase by 7 per cent in 1971 without any new wage agreements.

Would 7 per cent compensate the workers for the increase in the cost of living which will occur in 1971? Let us go back to the figures and the method of calculation. I proved when the Central Statistics Office produced the figures for 1968 of 4.7 per cent increase in the cost of living for that year that that figure was inaccurate because import prices went up by 11 per cent, export prices rose by 10 per cent, wages went up by 9 per cent and the value of the £ went down by 14 per cent. No one would believe the figure was 4.7 per cent. The Taoiseach pretended that I had gone to a particular grocer in order to procure my figures. I went to a particular grocer during the summer of 1968 because I was interested. I was relying on the actual increases in prices and on the factual fall in the value of money.

The Deputy was done.

I was not done at all. Whoever was the smart aleck who suggested it to the Taoiseach was a fool. He made a fool of himself. I was only showing that I was interested in the figures during the summer of 1968. Everything was going up continuously. The Central Statistics Office said there was no increase in the cost of living but in the period from May to August, 1968, there were continuous increases in prices. This brief provided unlimited amusement for us. The Minister said:

—we would have to take steps to protect the balance of payments and the parity of the Irish pound of such severity that considerable unemployment and a fall in national output would be almost inevitable. The development of the 12th round showed that once settlements have been made in a number of key sectors, neither Government exhortations to unions and employers nor price control have much hope of stopping them becoming generalised.

do not know who would pay much attention to the Government exhortations when the Government themselves are leading the band. I am not concocting any figures here today. The figure of £491 million for Government expenditure this year is a real figure.

It is a necessary figure. What would the Deputy cut out?

Fianna Fáil ask: "What would you cut out?" Some day, with your permission, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I will go through the Estimates volume and will say: "I will cut out that item, and that item, and that item." I could take £50 million out and it would be forgotten in a week. I could do it without putting one man out of work and without going to the banks to create £50 million of additional money.

The Deputy is being negative without being helpful.

This is a helpful suggestion.

What should be cut out?

Deputy Dr. O'Donovan must be allowed to proceed without interruption.

Deputy Davern should read the Estimates volume for himself. The brief further reads:

While wages and salaries are by far the most important constituent of total incomes,

What exactly does that mean? Wages and salaries are about 55 per cent of the national income. Is the Minister saying that wages and salaries in all occupations are more important than the incomes of the farmers who form a sizeable group and who receive about 38-40 per cent of the national income? When the Minister uses the words "the most important constituent" what does he mean? Why should the workers not receive the bulk of the national income? We had Deputy Healy talking about the workers doing very little work for the money they receive. I could give the Deputy examples of people who do no work for the money they receive. My old professor, the late Father Tom Finlay, said that it was not the unemployment at the lower end of the scale which interested him, but the unemployment at the upper end of the scale. The Minister stated in his brief:

The achievement of a rational and realistic policy on incomes is a first principle in this situation.

The Minister has not a hope and he will not get out to first base. That is my comment. One cannot have a prices and incomes policy and anyone who says you can is crazy. The Minister never studied economics properly at all if he says that in the kind of economy which we have. It might be possible in a fascist or soviet state but not here. The Minister further said that the people

want to see, and they are entitled to expect a voluntary wage agreement which is realistic and adequate to our situation.

It is all right to talk about this person or that person creating a voluntary wage agreement. This is still, I am glad to say, a free country. People have the right to do the best they can for themselves. No one would deny that the farmers have the right to do the best they can for themselves. In fact, you would get a dusty answer from them if you said to them: "You cannot sell the cow for the best price."

In his speech, the Minister said:

If after all this, there should be no acceptable agreement then the Government will act and this Bill enable us to do so in a decisive manner.

Either of two things is true. Either we are wasting our time here for the past couple of days or else the men outside who are engaged in serious discussions are wasting their time. One or the other is true. I think we are wasting our time.

Congress do not think so. What about the allegation the Deputy made?

I did not make any allegation. The Minister made the allegation. I said the Minister should prove it.

The Deputy said I was telling lies.

I said Congress had told me twice, because they were concerned about it, that there was no such claim. It was mentioned in the newspapers. It was a piece of cod. It was a fabrication.

The Deputy is referring to the claim for 100 per cent.

The Minister said £8 to £10. That also is untrue. The Minister should produce the evidence.

I have it. I am waiting for the Deputy to withdraw his allegations.

I will not. I spoke the truth. Will the Minister prove his case?

Yes, when I am replying. I am giving the Deputy an opportunity now to withdraw the allegation which was made——

I said, when the Minister made that statement, it was not true. I will stand over that.

I said it was true. I intend to prove it. We can see the Deputy's performance in its true perspective. The Deputy has got the opportunity to withdraw.

Low standards in high places. I am in no high place.

I shall not make a comment.

The Minister in his speech also says:

I think it well to emphasise this since some comments on the legislation have suggested that a wide loophole exists here. The opposite is the case; the control proposed here is rigid.

In other words, defined to be rigid. It is like section 22. At the foot of the same page, the Minister says:

The protection which they enjoy under the Trade Disputes Acts is not affected.

Again, it is like "It is all right. I will cut off only one leg. I am not cutting off the second leg". Deputy Tully suggests to me "I am not doing him any harm; I am only cutting off one leg". I cannot understand why people, when writing a document such as this, do not realise that they must be logical and that the end of the document must not be different from the beginning of the document. The Minister says further on in his speech:

The Minister for Industry and Commerce already has wide powers of control over the prices of most commodities and services under the Prices Acts 1958 and 1965.

Most of us would not think so. The Minister continues:

These existing powers will be rigorously applied to ensure that only unavoidable increases in costs are passed on to consumers and that every effort is made to absorb them, first, either by raising productivity or by accepting a lower level of profit, if that would not have unduly detrimental effects on the firm or industry.

There is an inference there that the Prices Acts, 1958 and 1965, were just put in to fool the people, were just put in as window dressing, were just put in as a pretence.

I have already deal with the question of new houses. The Minister says further:

The Bill is also extending the Prices Acts to new houses and to charges for professional services, contracts for the supply of goods or services, banking or insurance charges,...

Now that the Minister is in the House, why has the overdraft rate of 9½ per cent not been reduced? Is it because this Government suggests it stood behind the bank directors when they illegally closed the banks? Is it that they want to line their pockets further? The overdraft rate is 9½ per cent at the moment, although the Minister yesterday, in reply to my question, talked about cutting the rate of interest. At present, it is nothing related to 9½ per cent in any other country where a private banking system has developed.

I thought the Deputy was going to sue the banks.

The Minister said it. He said: "All right, you can sue the banks". It is bad enough to try to put words into my mouth——

Did the Deputy not say: "I did a case like that before and I won it?"

No. I gave the appropriate retort. I said that I took a case before against the Government and I won it. I owe the banks a lot more money than they owe me.

I would say the Deputy has company.

I think any honest politician is in much the same position.

Hear, hear. He is really "in the red" now.

The Revenue Commissioners have been defining a cow as a calf, and so on, right throughout the Finance Act. The only reason they got away with it is that everybody is trying to diddle them and nobody is prepared to hit them out of the ring.

Exclude me from that remark.

Take section 22 of this Bill. The side note says "Power to remove difficulties." That is of no legal significance. Subsection (1) states:

If in any respect any difficulty arises in bringing into operation or giving full effect to any provision of this Act, the Minister for Finance may by order do anything which appears to be necessary or expedient for bringing the provision into operation and giving full effect thereto.

Oh yeah! Oh yeah! As a piece of drafting say it again. Subsection (2) is even more interesting:

An order under this section may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear necessary or expedient for carrying the order into effect.

That is better still. If that is not unconstitutional, I am a Dutchman. It is clearly unconstitutional that the Minister for Finance may override the Legislature; in other words, that some civil servant in the Department of Finance may say: "The Dáil did not really mean that. I will straighten that up and say again that ‘cat' means ‘elephant' or something of that sort, that when the Dáil said ‘cat' they really meant ‘elephant'".

It could not happen in this country. We know too much about rural Ireland.

We are thinking of what your people did say and did not mean.

There is another angle to the various sections of the Bill. "Employee means a director" and so on. Ye gods! "A contract ...expressed or implied". Every civil servant holds office at the will and pleasure of the Government. There is no contract within the ordinary straight meaning of the simple word "contract". The word "contract" is simple and straight-forward. I am not going to go into the details of the various sections.

Let me finish by saying this Bill is a pretence and nonsense. The Minister spoke last night, or, perhaps, it was somebody else sitting in his seat, about standing down. That is an expression used in the courts—"stand down." What the Minister did was to back down. He backtracked. I am not saying the Minister used the term. I think Deputy Andrews was guilty of it. The expression suggests what is the major thing running through the subconscious mind of the Government. Anyway, they backed down but the term uppermost in their minds is "stand down".

Before he sits down will the Deputy tell us which position he will occupy in a coalition, if ever there is one?

No position. I will not do any negotiating.

I listened to Deputy O'Donovan, the magician of the Labour Party when, last week, as reported in the Official Report, this occurred:

The Taoiseach: There is a danger it will submerge us. I suppose Deputy O'Donovan will tell us that we created world inflation.

Dr. O'Donovan: You certainly did.

That is the type of man we have to listen to from the Labour benches. According to him, we caused world inflation.

It is about the only thing you did not do wrong.

It gives an idea of the type of man we have been listening to. Can we really rely on the figures or the quotations presented by him? I am sure that he invented many of them as he went along and threw them out to the House at random as he has done on so many occasions. It is to his credit that he brought down the first Coalition Government, and if he gets his hands on another he will perform the same service. Judging by the type of comment coming from him in recent years it is understandable why the people who supported him agree that he was responsible for bringing down that Government. There are other credits due to him in respect of that period, including the matter of prices. I mentioned last week that when the Government of which he was a member were deciding to increase the price of bread, he suggested not to increase it but to reduce the size of the loaf.

I did not.

It was the Minister for Finance the other day who suggested that that was a way to bring down prices.

I shall now deal with the Minister's brief. I, like Deputy Moore and others, have stated that we are against State interference of any kind in relation to the wages or conditions of employment of the workers of this country——

Hear, hear.

——in normal circumstances. In present circumstances, however, it is necessary to ease the inflationary pressure on us. Remedial action of this kind is much more acceptable to me than the industrial decline which resulted from Government action in 1944 and in 1956 when we had 100,000 people signing in the labour exchanges. In efforts to halt inflation, the Government have many options open to them, many ways of using the monetary system which would end inflation overnight. Such measures, however, would bring about a steep rise in unemployment and would disrupt the economy. Therefore, some other method had to be employed and that method has been adopted by the Government and explained to us by the Minister.

We realise that in the past the tightening of the credit screws tended to harm investment rather than to halt consumption. The Minister and the Government have given substantial thought to this and I support the action they have taken because I believe that job protection and job retention are vital matters as far as the workers are concerned. The main concern of the workers is that they will have jobs to go to and that they will not have to take the emigrant ship. It is these considerations that induce me to support this measure.

There are many aspects of the Minister's speech on which I will question him and there are some points on which I want certain assurances. However, I am prepared to accept what the Minister and the Government have presented because I think it is in the interests of industrial stability and job protection. This is acknowledged broadly by the people throughout the country. We have not heard any common outcry against the measures being taken by the Minister.

Neither Fine Gael nor Labour speakers have made a single serious suggestion during the course of the debate. They have rambled on but they have not offered a single constructive idea as to how to tackle the serious situation that has presented itself here as in most other European countries. Indeed, when the financial provisions introduced by the Minister for Finance last week were put to the House, Labour Deputies were pushed into the Fine Gael lobby to vote against them. The Labour Party had decided to remain in their seats during the voting but they were pushed into the Fine Gael lobby. They prostituted their moral consciences and voted against the provisions because Deputy FitzGerald and others told them to do so. Deputy Tully and others were pushed into the lobby——

The Deputy does not understand. It is too much to expect that he would.

It is an indication that they have already come across. We had a further indication of it through a pronouncement by Deputy O'Connell this morning. We had indications already from the second leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Desmond, from Deputy O'Leary and from other minor leaders. On the occasion of the division last week, they failed in their duty and they can now be accused of moral cowardice.

Not so long ago it was proposed by the Leader of the Labour Party and Deputy Tully that this is a form of taxation the Minister should impose. Then, when it was imposed they failed to support it, allowing themselves to be browbeaten into the lobbies because of what might happen in the future. This particularly cowardly act by the Labour Party will not be forgotten by the workers or by the other people whom Fianna Fáil try to protect.

Having listened to Deputy Cosgrave last night, I now realise why his contribution to the debate was so irrelevant. He made no contribution whatever to the debate except a long rambling speech. He now realise that his days are numbered as the leader of that party. The coalition group within the Fine Gael Party must have something to sell at the bargaining table with their Labour friends. It would appear from Deputy Cosgrave's speech that he is about to throw in the sponge. However, the Labour Party have quite a substantial amount of bankrupt stock to dispose of still. They are prepared to dump their new republic, to slide into the EEC and sell out their socialism on the basis that they might get some crumbs from the table of a Fine Gael Cabinet, or a coalition Cabinet, or whatever type of Cabinet they would propose to form——

The Deputy did not get many crumbs so far from his own party.

——or whatever type of credible alternative they might have in mind. I think "credible alternative" is the term used by them. I am quite sure they will be prepared to sell out again as they sold out in the past when policies were put in abeyance. There is no need to doubt that the new republic will be put in abeyance, if they have not already sold out, and I think they have. Fine Gael, however, have no principles left to sell.

Perhaps the Deputy would now come to the Bill.

He does not understand. You must forgive him.

I suggest that he is as close to the Bill as many other speakers we have heard.

That is a reflection on the Chair.

It might be a reflection on other speakers.

The Minister said:

...the Bill is not aimed at cutting back workers' living standards; it is rather aimed at safeguarding their existing living standards in real terms, at avoiding a further disimprovement in the level of employment and at creating conditions in which steady economic growth can be resumed.

Every responsible person will accept this situation and welcome whatever reasonable measures may be necessary to give an assurance that employment will not be interfered with, that living standards will be safeguarded in real terms, and that particular attention will be paid to the lower paid worker who has suffered so much in the past as a result of the tactics of people who were in a position to use their bargaining power at his expense. He is being protected as other sections are being protected. The housewife's income is being protected. These remedial measures are welcomed by people who examine the situation in depth and the Minister's proposals.

The Minister said they hoped that a proper institutional framework would enable unions and employers to work out arrangements on pay which would be consistent with the national interest. This was encouraged by the Minister and the Fianna Fáil Government. The NIEC report on incomes and prices policy was issued in April and in May; only a month later, the Government indicated that they favoured the setting up of the incomes and prices committee recommended in the NIEC report and the proposal that the NIEC would set income guidelines.

After almost six months, an attempt to reach agreement between employers and labour at the employer-labour conference ended in failure and action was then taken by the Government. This is outlined here by the Minister. We must realise that when dealing with major matters such as inflation—and this seems to be forgotten by the Opposition—it is necessary to introduce measures to ensure that corrections are made. Every effort was made to ensure that the workers and the employers could find a workable settlement which would be satisfactory to the workers, to the Government, to the employers and to the nation as a whole in the interests of the common good.

However, that broke down. I am glad to say that ICTU have taken responsible action in instituting further discussions. I trust those discussions will come to a successful conclusion. If they proceed on the basis on which they started, a satisfactory arrangement will come out of this. They are intelligent men and I am quite sure that, with the exception of some people who participated in the previous talks and who made various pronouncements at a later stage about the breakdown and welcomed the breakdown in the talks —members of the Labour Party; prominent candidates in recent by-election campaigns—they will make an effort to find a satisfactory arrangement. They were disturbed when the talks broke down in that effort which was made to achieve a voluntary system which would be acceptable to workers and employers.

On this aspect, ICTU have adopted a responsible attitude and they are acting in a more responsible manner than some of the speakers we heard here over the past day or so. At least they are making an effort to arrive at an acceptable conclusion and that is more than can be said of the people who hoped that no agreement would be reached and that there would be disruption on which they could cash in: cash in on the disruption, on the problems of the workers, giving them an opportunity to peddle the wares which they have been peddling for so long and hoping that so long as people are dissatisfied they themselves will get support. That day is gone. I am sure the responsible trade unions will now take part in an effort to bring about an arrangement that will be acceptable to the workers and to the nation.

The Minister said:

The action which the Government propose to take is not, of course, confined to pay... The Government measures in this Bill apply equally to all forms of remuneration as well as to directors' fees, dividends, rents and fees for professional services.

On the issue of directors' fees and fees for professional services, does this mean that if a doctor, for instance, wants to get around it he can bring a man back twice in the one week instead of once? Does it mean that if directors want to get around it the expense accounts will swell? Does it mean that this section can insulate themselves and get increases in the way the ordinary workers cannot? If the purchasing power of these people is allowed to increase by those means I am sure the Minister will have to bring in other measures. Can he assure us that there is no way out and that action will be taken where it can be proved that it is necessary?

The question of collective bargaining was mentioned. Like other members of my party I believe in the process of free collective bargaining. I said before —and it can be seen from the Official Report—that I believe in free collective bargaining. Under normal circumstances if any attempt were made to interfere with free collective bargaining I and other members of my party would certainly oppose it, certainly those people who are associated with trade unions and associated with the workers.

It is proposed here.

I am quite sure that under normal circumstances no effort would be made. The distortions we have heard here in the last couple of hours that we are against free collective bargaining are in no way correct.

I thought it was because the Deputy was in favour of free collective bargaining that he did not go out to the airport a couple of weeks ago.

That is not true at all. We will explain that situation if the Deputy wants it explained.

They know all about free collective bargaining in that party.

There is no restriction here on the movement of personnel.

I would ask the Minister to assure me that there will be no way round the question of fee for service whether it applies to lawyers or to other people. It has been mentioned that ways will be sought to get round this by expense accounts and by three and four businesses instead of one. When those boys start to proceed on that basis one never knows where they will stop and the person who will suffer most is the worker who will be tied to a restricted income.

Nobody in the Opposition seems to be interested in a remedy. Not a single suggestion has been made as to how the situation could be corrected. If they have a suggestion it would be interesting to hear it. The Minister said he would welcome suggestions but there have been no suggestions and we must accept that they have no ideas whatever——

(Cavan): We had suggestions 18 months ago.

——except to rant in the manner in which they have done here over the past two days in relation to this very vital measure that has been introduced by the Government.

I would like additional information from the Minister in relation to the strengthening of price controls. Up to now there has been quite a lot of horse trading in relation to consumer food so as to line the pockets of many people. I cannot see how the situation can be rectified in a short time. For many years the housewives of this city and country have been the victims of all types of pirates who put their hands in their purses and pockets. I hope this Bill will do something to strengthen price control. I would ask the Minister to give this matter very serious consideration and to ensure that the housewives are no longer held up to ransom as they have been in the past. I welcome the fact that attention is being directed to this now.

There are a few aspects in relation to prices which I should like the Minister to take into consideration. There is the question of where a manufacturer owns a retail business, producing for himself. I am referring particularly to people manufacturing outside the country and retailing within the country who have created monopolies and created a situation in which they can push prices up at random whenever they desire. I would ask the Minister to ensure that this matter is examined in great detail so as to deal with people who are in the manufacturing business and who are also in the retail business. Some of those people are at present creating very serious problems for the housewife. They have insulated themselves and introduced many unfair practices that are pushing prices up, like misleading selling techniques and other things that have been from time to time mentioned here. I would ask the Minister to ensure that the housewives of this city will benefit as a result of this new legislation.

I would also ask the Minister to examine the question of floor prices for goods and wholesale prices, plus a given amount, so that one could ascertain readily the price that one could charge for a commodity if a fixed wholesale price was determined or if a fixed percentage was determined as is the case in the US. The anti-trust laws there in relation to the A and P Company cleared up this aspect and gave the people there a clear picture of the situation in relation to prices. Prices are a most important aspect from the workers' point of view. While prices are climbing there will be a demand for additional pay. It is only when the Government are serious about prices— and I am sure they are and they have embodied it in the Bill—that the workers will be convinced that decisive action is being taken to ensure the protection of the housewives and of themselves, to ensure that their spending power is maintained. I am quite sure they will support all the Government action in relation to the situation.

I wonder does this Bill also apply to ESB services. Does it mean that there can be no further increases in ESB charges during this period? Are they frozen too? I trust all these matters will be commented on by the Minister.

In relation to repair work, how does the Minister propose to control the price for the repair of cars or other repair work as against production work? How will this proposal operate?

In relation to remuneration the Minister said in his speech:

The latter embrace all forms of remuneration by way of overtime, allowances, bonuses and cover as well such items as hours of work, superannuation, holiday and sick pay arrangements.

I think the inclusion of sick pay arrangements is something the Minister should reconsider. It is absolutely vital that workers should have sick pay arrangements. There are still a few concerns where there are no sick pay arrangements and I would ask the Minister to delete the reference to sick pay arrangements for workers in receipt of no sick pay benefits at the moment. It is important that families should be insulated against a period of sickness of the main income earner. The Minister should give serious consideration to this matter. I feel he was ill-advised to include this in the Bill and I hope he will reconsider it in relation to workers who at the moment have no sick pay. There are some firms which at the moment are in the process of making arrangements for sick pay to be made available to their workers as a fringe benefit. It is desirable and necessary that every worker should have sick pay arrangements. I would ask the Minister to give very serious consideration to this particular aspect. I wish to refer to the remuneration of apprentices and trainees. When the normal increase takes place at a given period at the end of one, two or three years, is this increase plus the increase in pay that is allowable under the Bill, even though the total of the two may be a figure larger than that provided for, subject to the restrictions as a whole or will they be dealt with on two separate bases?

The Minister also mentions the conditions of employment and states in his brief:

With regard to other terms and conditions of employment, the Bill makes it an offence for an employer to amend or vary the terms or conditions in operation or effect on 16th October, 1970.

In fact, some employers do not even measure up to their responsibilities. The conditions of employment, as outlined in the Conditions of Employment Act, are not implemented in full by some employers at the moment. If it is a fact that some employers have for a number of years been operating outside the Bill, does it mean that because some sections were not in operation in their particular concern that they need not now implement them? It is important that the conditions of employment, as they are enacted, should be fully enforced. Some employers who have not fully accepted them at the moment might think otherwise. I would ask the Minister to ensure that those particular people who have for so long denied the workers their rights would now have to give those conditions to their employees.

I, like other speakers on this side of the House and on the other side of it, would like to hear the Minister give some indication as to how this Bill will be extended to cover new houses. In what way can this Bill be applied to houses? How can it be applied to professional services, banking, insurance, interest charges and to hire purchase charges? Does it mean that the interest rates of the building societies cannot be increased? Does it mean that the insurance charges or the hire purchase charges cannot be increased? Does it include building societies? I should like to know from the Minister if it includes the interest rates of building societies as well as hire purchase charges.

I am glad to see that a number of sections of this Bill apply to rents and will give protection to tenants. It is important that tenants in the clutches of unscrupulous individuals from time to time, individuals who seek every opportunity to dislodge them and bring in other tenants at a higher rent, should get more protection than they got in the past. It appears to me that where injustice is being done by a landlord that this particular section will give protection to tenants. It states that the withholding of rent by the tenant pending the determination of the matter by the court will not give the landlord ground for ejecting the tenant. We know at the moment that if a tenant withholds his rent for a week some landlords use a number of devices to put him out on the basis that he is withholding his rent. I am glad to see that if a tenant withholds his rent, when an injustice is being done, the landlord cannot throw him out. This very often is the only means of bringing the matter to a head. I feel justice is being done in this Bill to tenants who have to resort to withholding rent as a means of applying pressure to unscrupulous individuals.

Might I ask the Deputy if he is for or against the Bill?

The Deputy is not in order in asking such a question at this stage.

I want to liven him up.

We do not know if the Deputy is against it either.

The Deputy has made it clear. He is making a far more constructive speech than any of the Deputies over there.

That would not be hard anyway.

I am waiting to hear what the Deputy has to say about section 22 which is the interesting one.

That is only for capitalists. The Deputy should not be worrying about that.

The Deputy does not know what the Bill is about if he says that. Section 22 is the section under which the Minister can do anything he likes.

The Deputy has not read the section.

The Deputy must not even have looked at the Bill.

I spoke on it yesterday.

I do not think the Deputy even read the Bill.

I can well understand the Fine Gael and the Labour Deputies being disturbed because I have pointed out some aspects of the Bill which give protection to the workers, the tenants and the housewives. I am looking for further information and I am making what I consider constructive comments on the sections. On page 11 of his brief the Minister says:

The Bill will, however, allow for an increase in the rent to cover expenditure by the landlord on necessary repairs and maintenance.

This is a particular aspect on which the Minister must ensure that undue increases are not applied. When a landlord is allowed to increase the rent, because of repairs which he has done, the increase is on an across-the-board basis and more than compensates for the work that has been done. This is evident in repairs carried out to houses in my area by a group who rent houses there, and which I have mentioned here on numerous occasions.

I would ask the Minister to ensure where repairs have to be carried out that the increase permitted will only be the amount necessary to meet the outlay. It is only fair that such increase would be allowed but it should do no more than that. We know that landlords have increased rents in anticipation of work being carried out and have got away with it for quite a considerable time. They must do the job and the Minister must ensure that the increases allowed are only adequate to meet the costs involved.

I am glad to see the survivor may continue in possession under the same terms and conditions as the deceased member of a family. This is something which will be welcomed. We know in many cases where there is no succession of tenancy the rent has been substantially increased and the survivor finds himself in very distressing circumstances when the company or organisation finds out the breadwinner has died and they increase the rent very substantially. I would like to say to the Deputies who want to know whether I am for or against this Bill, that I clearly explained my position in relation to it and in relation to every action I have taken both inside and outside the House.

This time last week the Deputy was thinking otherwise. He voted a certain way because otherwise there would be a general election.

I have nothing to be ashamed of as a result of any action I have taken in this House or outside it. I have always fully explained myself to my party, to my constituents and to the House. People know where I am going. I am not one of the people who have to be pushed into the Lobby like Deputy Tully and like Deputy Thornley who had to be pushed in by Deputy O'Leary.

You all voted for the Government last week because if a general election occurred you would be wiped out.

——and they all voted against these important measures.

Only one honourable man, Deputy Boland.

The Labour Party in common with their Fine Gael colleagues—and I mentioned here already that Fine Gael have no principles left and that the Labour Party have some bankrupt stock to dispose of——

The Deputy should have heard what the Taoiseach said last night about the bankrupt stock in Fianna Fáil.

Would Deputy Tully please restrain himself?

Now that the Labour Party have dumped their new republic policy, they are again in the clutches of the Fine Gael Party who, I am sure, will do the same to the Labour Party as they did to other little parties they got their hands on from time to time. I fully subscribe to the actions taken by the Government. I indicated my objections and put questions to the Minister and sought undertakings.

(Interruptions.)

This Bill is acceptable, as I said at the outset, and it is a pity certain Deputies were not here because on a previous occasion when this country was faced with inflation and faced with a situation identical to that with which we are now faced, the then Coalition Government packed their bags in the middle of the night. ran out of office and left behind 100,000 unemployed, and thousands of empty houses throughout the city, because the people had taken to the boat. We do not want to see a recurrence of the industrial disaster where building workers had to go to Coventry, Birmingham and elsewhere so that there were no building workers available here to produce houses for the workers; where houses were available only because of the vast emigration that took place at that time due to the failure of the Government of the day to take the necessary remedial measures to ensure that jobs were protected.

If this Bill is necessary to protect jobs I am in favour of it. If it is necessary to protect the purchasing power of the housewife's money and that of the lower paid worker, I am in favour of it. The Minister's speech has clearly outlined in great detail the provisions of the Bill that meet these requirements. It is laughable to hear those who deserted the nation in the middle of the night and ran out of office describe themselves as a responsible alternative government.

Any alternative would be responsible.

There was nothing responsible about them. Not one single suggestion has come from the Leader or any member of the Fine Gael Party or, indeed, any member of the Labour Party as to how the Government could relieve the inflationary pressures that are upon us. One has only to speak to the people throughout the country or to read the newspapers to realise that the vast majority of the people are responsible, thinking members of the community. They have shown no opposition to the Government's policy. The only people who have shown any opposition are the hacks on the Labour Party benches.

The intellectuals of the Fianna Fáil Party.

The well-read young men of the Labour Party. Before I conclude I should like to refer to what Deputy Conor Cruise-O'Brien said yesterday. He spoke about the abuse of power. He spoke at length here about what the Minister was going to do in relation to planning appeals, of the vision he had that in years to come the Minister would be fiddling the planning appeals. Of course, the Deputy did not read the Order Paper yesterday or he would have seen item No. 20: "Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1969: Second Stage."

How long is that there?

Deputy O'Brien had the Order Paper in front of him yesterday and did not know that item was on it. Furthermore, the First Reading of that Bill had already taken place.

Would the Deputy hazard a guess as to when the Second Reading will take place?

It is now on the Order Paper and this would clearly indicate the Deputy did not know what he was talking about. One has only to read his contribution in the paper to realise he did not refer to the Bill at all but spoke about other matters that were in no way connected with the Bill. Again, he did not make a single suggestion—just like Deputy O'Donovan who told us we were responsible for world inflation. This is how fantastic the speakers of the Labour Party can be. Let me quote again from column 722, volume 249, of the Official Report of 4th November last:

The Taoiseach: There is a danger that it will submerge us. I suppose the Deputy will tell us we created world inflation.

Dr. O'Donovan: You certainly did.

This will give the people an idea of the type of spokesman the Labour Party are presenting here. One person does not read the Order Paper and another tells us we are responsible for world inflation. I wonder who controls the wind and the rain. They will probably say Fianna Fáil are responsible for the wet weather.

The wind anyway.

I hope we shall hear from the next speaker from the Labour Party or the Fine Gael Party at least some suggestions as to how this problem can be overcome by measures other than those presented by the Minister. As I said before, the Labour Party have no principle left. They were pushed into the Lobby, probably at the request of Deputy Dick Burke. I believe he was the man responsible for that, or perhaps it was Deputy FitzGerald, or probably both of them together, who were seeing seats on this side of the House. But they will only see them from the other side. I would ask the Minister to ensure that the price factors I have mentioned will be examined in detail so that the weaker sections of the community can benefit by whatever restrictions are being placed on this very temporary basis.

I hope the Minister is listening.

Deputy Dowling has as much chance of getting it done with the Parliamentary Secretary as with the Minister.

There is no shortage of answers on this side of the House.

When interruptions cease I shall call on Deputy Flanagan.

It is extremely difficult to know whether the last speaker was for or against the Bill. It is right and proper that we recall the story of Alannah Machree's daughter who went a little bit of the road with everyone and the whole of the road with no one, just like Deputy Dowling's speech. He was for parts of the Bill and against other parts of it. He was blowing hot and cold at the same time. That is not unusual for a member of the Fianna Fáil Party.

I wonder if Deputies on all sides of the House are viewing the present situation with the seriousness that is appropriate. I wonder if Members of the House and the public at large know the root cause of this problem of inflation. The problem of inflation did not set in yesterday or the day before. The problem of inflation arose when a successful effort was made by the former Taoiseach, Mr. Lemass, to buy votes to win the by-elections in Kildare and Cork City. It is only right that we be honest with the present Government and the people and tell them where the problem started because conveniently they seem to have forgotten. The first signs of inflation arose when the former Taoiseach, Mr. Lemass, decided overnight to purchase, at very great cost to the country, votes for Fianna Fáil in the two by-elections in Kildare and Cork City. Everybody knew the motive behind that move.

If we bring the picture a little nearer the present time is it not correct to say that the country appears to have been running on its own both economically and financially for the past three or four years? There is clear evidence of no leadership. The problem which has resulted in the introduction of this legislation has been brought about by Fianna Fáil themselves. I pity Deputies like Deputy Dowling and other Deputies who get up to try to make a case for this Bill, because unfortunately if they wet their own bed they must sleep in it. This is the reason why Fianna Fáil Deputies are making such a feeble case for this legislation. In their heart of hearts Fianna Fáil Deputies know that the deplorable economic situation we are in today has been brought about by inactivity, lack of policy, lack of leadership and above all by a lack of interest in the country.

Every person who has a finger on the pulse of public opinion knows that we are experiencing a high degree of uneasiness which is something we have not had for many, many years. There is uneasiness amongst workers and trade unionists, business and professional people, manufactures, industrialists and the farming community Nearly every section of the community is in chaos and disorder. This has been brought about through the mishandling and bad management of the Government.

Is it not correct to say that the cost of living is soaring at a record pace? The gap between the rich and the poor is becoming greater. Well-to-do people, who may be described as those who have the cream of what is going, are living in lavish comfort while the vast majority of workers are finding it extremely difficult to rear and educate their families and at the same time keep out of debt. The Government have lost control and in addition to losing control they have lost interest in the administration of the country. Fianna Fáil speak from platforms and tell the workers they have never had it so good but we must bear in mind that there are something like 60,000 people registered as unemployed and it is generally believed that there are another 10,000 to 15,000 people unemployed but not registered.

The Minister for Finance and the Government know very well that industry is passing through a very difficult time. We who have textile industries in our constituencies know that the textile trade is on the brink of collapse with short-time, half-time and complete close down. That is the case in my constituency and in Athlone. Taking only the textile and worsted industry as an example, we have a very serious situation in which hundreds of wage earners have been laid off with no prospect of a return to work or a revival of their industry in the immediate future, with no sympathy from the Minister for Industry and Commerce, no plans or prospects in those sections of the industry that have closed or are closing down, and there seems to be no ray of hope from the Government. Then we are told that there must be a check, that people are earning and spending too much, living too well, eating and drinking too much. It is difficult to follow the Government's line of thought.

Listening to the Minister for Finance, one would imagine that some outside circumstances were responsible for what he describes as a grave economic crisis here. It is well to note, and I think it has been clearly expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Cosgrave, that there are no outside circumstances responsible for the economic crisis here. There is now no Suez crisis, no Korean War, no difficulties in Europe which could affect us. The crisis has been brought about by Fianna Fáil themselves. Deputy Dowling and other Deputies then ask the Opposition what suggestions they can make. We can make one practical suggestion, the only common sense, intelligent suggestion that can be made and that is that they should get out and have the courage to face the people.

They do not like to hear that. They do not want it.

Is it not extraordinary that a Government of 13 or 14 members in the present circumstances should stand up and ask the Opposition to make suggestions? Members of the Opposition are not paid for doing the work of Ministers and Government that makes crises and if the Ministers blunder, as they have been doing for the past 18 months and continue to do, they must not expect the Opposition to do the job which they are unfit to do because they are incompetent. The only practical suggestion in this so-called crisis manufactured by Fianna Fáil — it is one that I am sure comes from both Fine Gael and the Labour Party as a united suggestion—is that they should have the courage to face the people because the farmers and workers, business and professional people, manufactures and industrialists all feel the pinch of lack of leadership, bad handling and bad management. All sections of the community are united in their anxiety to drive this Government out and keep them out. That is why the Taoiseach and his Ministers shiver — and "shiver" is the word—from sheer cowardice at the mention of a general election.

That brought them together last week.

Is it not extraordinary how these Fianna Fáil crises come and go? They can make a crisis overnight and in ten days afterwards, if it suits them, the crisis has passed and we have got around the corner again—to use a typical Fianna Fáil expression — and we are on the road to economic recovery. Not alone have we reached the target but we have exceeded it. Then suddenly something happens the target; things have gone wrong again.

I remember the Minister for Finance appearing on television and warning the country of the most terrible disasters about to overtake it. In a few weeks the Taoiseach decided to have a general election and the whole economic position was righted overnight and there was nothing wrong.

The real position is that the country has fallen into such a state of bad management and decay that confidence has been completely lost. Then, a Bill of this kind is introduced by the Minister of a Government that has no confidence in itself. They do not trust each other; they do not see eye to eye. They are a Government, the members of which do not trust each other, a abolishes them when it suits them. They are concentrating all their energies— I am sure the whole 14 of them are united in this — on dipping their hands down deep into the pockets of every taxpayer and dipping their hands deep into the purse or handbag of every housewife. But that is not the only successful accomplishment of the Fianna Fáil Government. They have dipped deeply into everyone's pocket through the medium of taxation, direct and indirect, through turnover tax and income tax, concentrating all their energies on taking everything they possibly could from the people. Is it not extraordinary that, while they are at that, some Minister will find himself at a ceilí, a dinner or a dance and while those running the function are concentrating all their energies on taking anything he has in his pockets from him, another Minister is standing up somewhere else advising the people to save, to invest their money in post office savings or in prize bonds and to keep on saving in the national interest? What do they expect the people to save? If you leave nothing in a man's pocket or in a woman's purse what is there left to save?

God be with the days when there was one Budget every year and there was great excitement for a week or ten days before it. There would be headlines in the various newspapers speculating about what the Minister would tax or would not tax. We have now reached the stage at which budgeting through the medium of an annual Budget is finished. We now have supplementary Budgets and we have deliberate action by Ministers in their respective Departments which result in mini-Budgets in addition to the annual Budget and the Supplementary Budget. This is nothing but a raid on the pockets of the people.

It has been clearly stated here by more than one Deputy that workers are earning too much and that they are not actually producing by their own sweated labour the equivalent of what they are taking home in their pay packets and we have a measure of this kind as a threat to trade unions and organised workers. May I ask the Minister what are workers to do if they find, as a result of the increase in the cost of living, that they have not sufficient out of their pay packets to make ends meet? What are they to do when the Government deliberately make it more difficult for them to live on their wages? The purchasing power of the £ diminishes month by month. We have the turnover tax in respect of which every businessman who is registered automatically becomes an unpaid tax collector for the purpose of keeping Fianna Fáil in office. The increase in the turnover tax has driven the price of food, clothing and fuel out of the reach of many, out of the reach of those on fixed incomes, of those on social welfare benefits, home assistance and disablement benefit.

What about the 60,000 unemployed and the 10,000 unemployed who are not registered? All of these have to meet the increases in the prices of essential foodstuffs. Recently there has been an increase in train and bus fares. We have had the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs telling us he had to increase the cost of the postage stamp to 9d in order to pay the officials of his Department. Then we have this Bill and other Ministers saying they will not have any further increases. Does all this add up to the extraction of money from the people by false pretences? I distinctly heard the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs make the case that the increases were necessary in order to pay the workers. According to this Bill the workers will not be paid. Will the price of postage revert or will the Minister go on collecting these increases? Where will they go?

I also heard the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs make the case that radio and television licences had to be increased because they wanted to take on additional activities and had to recruit more staff for that purpose. Yesterday there was an announcement that there will be a cutting-down on activities in Radio-Telefís Éireann. There may be redundancy. Certain programmes will be cut out. Will the Minister now reduce the licence fees? They were increased on the understanding that extra services were to be provided. The Minister's statement was a deliberate attempt to deceive licence holders and those availing of postal services.

The most unreasonable increase of all is the increase in rail and bus fares. Those increases should never have been approved by the Government. Motor taxation has been increased substantially. All these increases have been imposed without consultation and without due regard to the hardships they create. The purpose for which they were sought no longer exists.

Is it any wonder that this country finds itself in the present serious situation? I have often said, and there is no harm in repeating it, that when the public sow nettles they cannot expect roses to grow. I am sorry for the people but any time they had an opportunity they chose to sow the nettles that have now stung them. When you see the majority of our people returning Fianna Fáil to office, election after election, it is difficult to have sympathy for them.

Hear, hear.

In regard to this Bill we are told that there will be control on prices and a close eye will be kept on wage increases. The sensible way of dealing with this matter is for employers and workers to get together and hammer out an agreement. What happens to the worker who has reached agreement with his employer in regard to increases? Is he going to stand idly by and see his pay packet becoming less each week as a result of substantial increases in prices of the commodities he must purchase for himself and his family?

I say this with full knowledge and for the benefit of the Minister. The Minister and Fianna Fáil would be well advised to take their hands off the trade unions. I have not a direct concern with the trade unions but I am speaking as a person who has knowledge of what it means to be associated with the unions. My father and my grandfather were associated with the trade union movement. Fianna Fáil are treading on dangerous ground if they think that now or in the future the trade union movement will be so foolish as to allow them to dictate——

I think, Sir, that we should have a House to hear the Deputy's remarks.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

I was endeavouring to warn the Government of the dangerous ground on which they are treading in their efforts to muzzle the rights of trade unions to speak on behalf of their members. The workers owe a deep debt of gratitude to their trade unions. Any worker, white collar or otherwise, who is not associated with and a member of his union is not worthy to be described as a worker. When I read the statement of the Minister for Finance that he was going to consider seriously a wage freeze——

It is not a wage freeze.

He changed his mind about the wage freeze.

The Deputy also has changed his mind on several occasions.

A couple of the Deputy's friends in Athy will change their minds in the next fortnight. It would be worth the Deputy's while to go down to Athy and investigate it. It was the intention of the Minister for Finance to introduce a wage freeze if he could get away with it——

Deputies

It is not a wage freeze.

One part of the Fianna Fáil are speaking now. The other part are silent.

Has the Deputy any evidence?

There is no doubt that Fianna Fáil endeavoured to introduce a wage freeze. This is not the first time; they tried it before. Many years ago proposals for a wage freeze were on the desk of Mr. Lemass when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce. But, as a result of certain soundings undertaken by the Minister for Finance and the Government, they decided to modify these proposals because they had to cater for the rebels within their own party, and they would have had to face an angry trade union movement in the country.

Those who are engaged in trade union activities fully realise that it is the inefficiency, incompetence and neglect of Fianna Fáil which are responsible for the state of affairs which Fianna Fáil now complain of. If Fianna Fáil are endeavouring to cajole the workers into not seeking increases in pay when the cost of living rises what do they expect workers' trade unions to do? Would it not be a fine gesture on the part of the Government to give us some evidence of price control? In the days of the much-criticised inter-Party Government there was a prices advisory body. This body was later scrapped by the Fianna Fáil Party to facilitate those in big business and with big money who wanted to increase prices how and when they liked. They were not allowed to increase their prices when the inter-Party Government were in office. They had to go before a public inquiry and prove their case before being permitted to raise prices. The position now is different. We were told a month ago that there would be no increase in prices. Last week an interesting list appeared in the paper and among the items increased in price was toilet paper.

(Interruptions.)

I am glad to hear one voice from the Fianna Fáil benches raised in protest against the increase in the price of toilet paper.

(Interruptions.)

The Deputy is welcome back. We missed him.

The Minister would not say that to Charlie.

I will not comment on the Minister's remark. The Minister for Finance must be confused or very taken up with his ministerial duties if he did not see me in the House.

We have not had the benefit of this highly oratorical style for a long time and it is great to hear it again.

The debate was so disgraceful and disastrous that my nostrils would not allow me to come into the House. After 27 years as a Member of this House it may be noted that I did not contribute.

I would be inclined to agree with the Deputy.

What order will the Minister make under section 22 of this Bill, which may be described as legislation by order? That spells out typical dictatorship to me. This is very dangerous power for the House to give to any Minister. We are voting vast sums of money in this House annually and the moment the money is voted we have no further control over it. We have no control as to how it is spent. I am referring to the State and semi-State bodies; all we have to do in respect of them is pass huge sums of the tax-payers' money and no one can ask afterwards where the money went or how it was spent. Democracy has taken a hell of a licking when that is the case. It is extraordinary that Deputies must pass this money and make huge sums of the taxpayers' money — money which comes out of workers' pockets — available for businessmen, and yet we cannot raise any question as to how such money is spent by those who are in a position to spend it. The Minister for Finance must admit that this Government, of which he is Minister, is commonly known as the cheque book Government. Everyone knows that any man who can afford to buy his way can do so successfully. Any one who wants to buy export facilities can buy them; any one who wants to buy licences can buy them.

That is a serious allegation. Could I ask the Deputy to produce evidence?

It is well-known that special facilities are being afforded to those who are prominently associated with Taca.

Any evidence?

May I ask the Minister what is the purpose of putting into this Bill a provision for legislation by order? It is very dangerous for this House and for the country, as well as for the trade union movement and the employers themselves, that we should legislate blindfolded to give any Minister the right or authority to legislate by order.

That is the blank cheque.

What is the Minister going to legislate about? How often will he legislate by order? A provision of this kind in any Bill means that democracy has taken a hell of a walloping in this House. That is a bad provision. It is an unjust provision. It is a provision in a Bill which should not be entertained by any House, so described, or in the name of democracy. I think it is wrong. Not alone can it be abused, not alone is it likely to be abused, but it can be used by the stronger sections against the weaker sections of the community. That is why I feel that legislation by order is the most dangerous type of legislation possible. Legislation by order is quite feasible for Mr. Kosygin, for Marshal Tito or for some of those people in countries in which the rights of freedom and liberties are not guaranteed. To legislate by order is a very serious blank cheque for any House to give to any Minister.

I want to come to my own profession, if I may, and ask the Minister, in relation to this—because the Minister for Justice attended as a guest, mind you, at a dinner of the Irish Auctioneers and Estate Agents recently——

Watch it, now. He might send back the price of the dinner as Deputy MacEntee did on one occasion——

Having enjoyed the welcome and the friendship and the courtesy of the members of that association, he proceeded to make a speech in which he told the auctioneers and estate agents of this country that they are earning too much; that their fees are too high; that they should consider reducing their incomes despite the fact that their overall expenses — light, employees, offices, rates, taxes, postage— have all vastly increased due to Fianna Fáil mismanagement, a prominent part in which was played by the Minister for Justice within its ranks. The Minister for Justice, Deputy Desmond O'Malley, said, in effect: "You should seriously consider reducing your fees yourselves or, if not, the matter may have to be further considered".

In accordance with the provisions of section 22 of this Bill, the Minister for Finance will have the power to legislate by order. Is it by these means this will be done? If this Bill is enacted, the Minister for Finance may take it upon himself to make an order, which will be deemed to have been passed by this House, drastically to cut the income of any section of the community. May I respectfully say that this is what the Minister for Justice had in mind when he was telling the auctioneers and estate agents that, if they did not cut their fees themselves, he would have to have a look at the laws of the land? I presume he had in mind the making by his colleague of an order under the relevant section of this Bill, when enacted, which would reduce the fees and commission chargeable by auctioneers and estate agents.

If the Minister for Justice is throwing that threat out to the auctioneers and estate agents, I would point out it was opposed not alone by the members of that association in this country but by Mr. Tyson, President of the World Real Estate Federation, who said that we in the Republic of Ireland have the lowest rate of commission in the profession of any country he knew of and he recommended the Irish members of the profession to resist in the strongest possible manner Government interference in the domestic affairs of a professional organisation. That is why I say that this Government will bite off and chew a little more than they can swallow if they start dipping into the domestic affairs of trade unions and of professional organisations and telling them what their rates of pay should be; what their measure of profit should be; how their measure of profit should be arrived at — whilst, at the same time, making it more difficult for them to do business. Can anyone picture the Minister for Justice — having swallowed the Auctioneers' and Estate Agents' dinner— telling them that they must reduce their fees? Consider the conditions which prevailed during the recent bank strike of six months during which an auctioneer did not turn over a ten shilling piece. No one could get money for deposits. No one could get the necessary banking accommodation to assist him to complete a sale. No solicitor could get it. Nobody should know all that better than the Minister for Finance. Every solicitor's office and every auctioneer's office is piled high with files, waiting for the banks to open. No sales were effected; no contracts were signed or, if they were signed, certain conditions were attached to them.

The bank strike was the greatest Godsend for Fianna Fáil. The longer the cement strike lasted the better the Government liked it: the less demand there was on housing; the fewer the grants that had to be paid; the fewer the activities in that section of the Custom House. They even described the bank dispute as a "strike" but everybody knows it was not a strike but a lock-out when the bankers of this country took it into their heads to close the doors and to lock out the officials because they had a genuine grievance. In addition, they locked, in their safes and vaults, money that belonged to the public. I have often wondered why some group of citizens did not sue the banks and make them open their doors so that the public could have access to, and put their hands on, their own money. It is wrong for any Government to standidly by and to see the whole country at a complete stand still due to this bank lock-out.

This Government will not stand idly by——

The Government were too busy fighting amongst themselves and planning and plotting to interest themselves in the same strike. The last thing in their thoughts was settlement of the bank strike. They were not paid by cheque. They could go down to Government Buildings and have their drafts changed into cash. They could not care less if the bank officials were in the four corners of the earth or if John Citizen wanted to get his hands on his own money and was locked out and could not put his finger on it. There was no display of interest in that respect from Fianna Fáil. They were too busy trying to glue themselves together, trying to keep together, watching what Deputy Cosgrave described as "the loot". They wanted to keep their hands on the public purse, on power and authority, on power over jobs, on power over the collection of money, on power over the allocation of money, on power over the distribution of political graft. That is all they were concerned with. They were not concerned with the right of any man to go to his bank and to say to his bank agent: "I want my own cash". He could not do it.

Fianna Fáil were all locked up in Government Buildings, with swords drawn, sharpening their blades, waiting to get at each other — and, while all this was going on, business in this country was at a standstill. The one profession that really suffered from that sad and sorry state of affairs in our country was the auctioneering profession. The first of the professions to be asked by the Minister for Justice, Deputy Desmond O'Malley, to make a sacrifice for the State is this very profession and he asked them to make this sacrifice so that he could dip his hands in to take out what he could get in the nature of loot or otherwise.

I should like to ask the Minister a question which Deputy Dowling, God bless the mark, did not quite get to. There are in this country inspectors of weights and measures whose duty it is to see that the public get the right weight and measure in the matter of the goods they purchase. How does it come about that in the case of the ESB there is no such supervision of the measure of the units used or, in the case of the Gas Company, of the number of therms used? I am sure the Minister understands that unit refers to electricity and that gas is measured in therms.

I understand that all right.

Gas is checked by the corporation every day.

I assure the Deputy that gas is used in other parts of the country besides the Dublin Corporation area. What check is there on the ESB meters. I have seen ESB bills and I am quite satisfied that the ESB are making excessive demands. I am quite sure the same applies to gas. The consumers have been fleeced. The best way I can get information is to put down a question to the relevant Minister next week, which I will do.

The Deputy is wasting his time putting down a question.

He can make a better case when he has not got the information.

Rents have gone beyond the capacity of the people to pay. Everybody agrees that building sites have been bought up by the free cheque books of speculators. Those speculators have got away with it not alone around Dublin but in the country where, perhaps, they do not make themselves so prominent in social activities. They have been allowed to drive the price of houses up. No effort is being made to consider the plight of the young married man who is anxious to purchase a site on which to build a house.

In the matter of rents, local authorities receive orders from the Custom House as to the type of houses to be built and the amount of subsidy payable and the conditions are such that it obliges them to build houses whose rents are beyond the capacity of working people to pay. The building trade in this country gave substantial employment but the outlook is not so bright at the moment.

I wish to ask the Minister for Finance if it is a fact that the British Government intend to introduce legislation to control immigration of workers from Ireland. What would happen to Irish workers, denied work at home, if they are prohibited from going to England? Where will they go? Some time ago we had the regrettable situation in which the US Government restricted Irish people from going to work in the US. In view of the bond of friendship existing between the two countries this was most regrettable, but I did not read of any protest made by the Irish Government to the US Government. I distinctly remember hearing Mr. McCormack, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, say that if strong representations had been made by the Irish Government he was convinced the US Government would relent in respect of Irish workers because of the fund of friendship between the two countries.

My concern is what will happen to the people who are unemployed by Government mismanagement, by the Government's lack of a plan, if they cannot go to either Britain or America to secure work. I see a very tragic picture. That is why I hope that common sense will prevail and that the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach—whichever Minister happens to be in control of Fianna Fáil at the moment — will approach the Home Office and the British Government in general in regard to the freedom of Irish people to emigrate and to work in Britain. If the proper action had been taken I am convinced that the state of affairs which exists today between this country and the United States in relation to the freedom of our people to go there for suitable employment would not have arisen.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn