As amendment No. 3 is consequential on amendment No. 1, the two amendments could be discussed together.
SECTION I.
Prices (Amendment) Bill, 1971: Committee Stage.
(Cavan): I move amendment No. 1:
To add to the section a new subsection as follows:—
(3) The Acts shall not apply to charges for services, the charges for which are, or may be, controlled, regulated or specified either under any enactment, or any instrument made thereunder, or in discharge of any statutory power, duty or function.
The object of this amendment is to exclude from the Bill any charge for services by any profession which is already controlled. The idea behind the amendment should be obvious. We find there is no necessity to apply the prices control provisions of this Bill to a profession or any other occupation which is already controlled. I speak with special reference to the solicitors' profession. The solicitors' profession has been subjected to costs control of a very stringent nature for nearly 100 years.
There are at present as many as six statutory committees dealing with solicitors' charges. These committees are composed of members of the judiciary and members of the profession concerned. The important thing about it is that the last word is not even left in the hands of these statutory committees. In regard to what is called non-contentious work, the Minister has the right to bring before the House any recommendation made by the committees concerned and to put down a resolution annulling the order. In fact, the Minister for Justice invoked this power on quite a few occasions. He invoked it recently when one of the committees dealing with general costs brought in a scale of costs with which the Minister did not agree. The Minister put down a resolution in the Seanad asking that House to annul that particular order. It was annulled by the Seanad.
In regard to the contentious work carried out by the solicitors' profession the Minister has a stronger power at present. He has the power to veto the recommendations or any scale of costs drawn up by the committee. There is a number of scales of costs before the Minister for Justice for quite a while and he has not approved of them. They cannot become law until he approves of them. I am making that case to try to point out to the Minister and to the House that in so far as the solicitors' profession is concerned they are already adequately controlled. It is fair to say that they are the only profession that are controlled at the moment and have been adequately controlled as far back as 1884.
I do not always agree with following precedents from across the water. I think we are notorious in this country for taking precedents from Acts of Parliament from the Westminster Parliament and even from the Northern Ireland Parliament. There is price control legislation in the United Kingdom. I believe that it is controlled under a committee there and it is true to say that the Lord Chancellor has a very big part to play in the control of legal charges. I understand that the Minister for Justice takes the view that the Lord Chancellor is a similar personage to the Minister for Justice here. The Lord Chancellor in Great Britain is, in fact, head of the judiciary. He is a judge and he has very considerable power in the fixing of costs. In England, according to my information, professional charges were not brought within the price control legislation because they are already adequately controlled. I further understand that the same position applies in Northern Ireland. Solicitors' charges are regulated there in the same way as they are here by judicial committees subject to the right of Parliament, when it was there, to annul recommendations or orders made by the committee.
Those are briefly the points I wish to make. I should like to have the Minister's observations on them or his case against them. We are introducing price control now on a very wide basis but the fact of the matter is that in the field with which I am dealing at present we have very adequate costs control. It sometimes takes as long as seven years to reach agreement with the Department of Justice in regard to solicitors' charges. The amendment which I am putting forward is a reasonable one. I would be glad to hear the Minister's views on it.
I am opposed to this amendment. I think the Deputy could anticipate this as there was a discussion on Second Stage on the possibility of excluding legal fees or controlling services under this heading. At that stage I endeavoured to give an outline of the reasons why I thought it was proper that legal charges should be included in the overall control of service charges that I proposed under the Prices (Amendment) Bill.
I am aware of the various committees to which Deputy Fitzpatrick referred. He pointed out that the system of control which had been operating in the 1880s in that profession was a satisfactory one. I do not feel that this is so. He indicated that quite recently the Minister for Justice had occasion to oppose an order and that the existing legislation gave sufficient power to the Minister for Justice to control charges in this regard. I do not share this view with the Deputy. I found myself reading a number of the contributions which had been made by various Senators and by the Minister for Justice in the Seanad on 23rd February this year when the general order of solicitor's remuneration was being discussed there. Senator O'Higgins, leading for Deputy Fitzpatrick's party in the Seanad, said in relation to this that the solicitors' profession was as much entitled to fair play and fair remuneration as any other sector of the community.
I agree totally with Senator O'Higgins in that regard. In fact, section 2 of the Bill incorporates this amendment proposed by Deputy Fitzpatrick here, but the second amendment, No. 3, which we are also discussing, would mean the withdrawal of the very important part of section 2 (1) (b) of the Bill. Deputy Fitzpatrick mentioned that he did not like drawing comparisons with the situation in the UK, but went on to say that the situation there was so satisfactory that under the price control arrangements there it was not found necessary to take the powers I am proposing to take here, and that the Minister for Justice was comparing himself with the Lord Chancellor. He should be in a position to do this from the point of view of the effective control of legal remuneration, because the rules in England made by the County Court Rules Committee may be allowed or disallowed or may be altered by the Lord Chancellor. The situation here is that the Minister for Justice may allow or disallow; to follow the format, he may only agree with or disagree with, but he cannot alter. If he disagrees in one section he must come to this House or the Seanad to oppose the order. This is what he found it necessary to do on a recent occasion when it was proposed under certain headings to increase the overall legal fees by 42 per cent.
I do not think there is any justification for my accepting this amendment for the withdrawal of the controls outlined by the Deputy. The representatives of the Incorporated Law Society met in my Department for a discussion on this, and from reports to me arising from those discussions I feel there is not that great deal of pressure from the Incorporated Law Society to have themselves excluded from this Bill. They are most anxious that their voices should be heard by the committee operating on behalf of the Minister for Justice when the powers of control taken in this Bill are handed over to the Minister for Justice by the Government. They are asking for a similar type of access to the committee which the Minister will have advising him in this regard to that which would be available to people who want to make a case to the National Prices Commission under the existing regulations for price control in my Department.
I have no reason to believe that this type of facility will not be made available to them. As I say, I have not been under pressure from the Incorporated Law Society to exclude the legal costs, as is proposed in this amendment. Therefore, what Senator O'Higgins asked for in the Seanad, to have the same type of fair play afforded to the legal profession as is afforded to any other of the professional services is, I think, the proper way to deal with it, and that is how I propose to deal with it under the Bill.
(Cavan): This amendment standing in the name of Deputy Cooney and myself, while I am not in a position to give the exact date, was handed in, it seems to me, some months ago. The Minister is quite correct when he says that since then there have been comings and goings between the Incorporated Law Society and the Minister's Department in an effort to get what he calls fair play for the profession. However, my information is that when representatives of the law society call on the Minister for Industry and Commerce they are referred by him to the Minister for Justice, and when they go to the Department of Justice they are told by that Department that they should make their representations to the Minister for Industry and Commerce because he is piloting this piece of legislation through Dáil Éireann.
It is in those circumstances that I put down this amendment. If I could get from the Minister here an undertaking that he would accede to the reasonable requests of the law society, then I would be in a position to withdraw this amendment. I repeat that, in my opinion, the charges of the solicitors' profession are at the present time, and have been for a great many years back, subject to stringent control and to measurement by officers of the court. Not alone are scales of cost provided but those scales are left to independent, quasi-judicial officers known as taxing masters, who tax any solicitor's bill referred to them, and every citizen in this country has the statutory right to have any bill of costs furnished to him taxed or measured by one of the taxing masters of the High Court before he pays it.
That is a procedure that I can say no other profession I am aware of is subject to and it is for that reason that I say the present procedures for safeguarding the public against any attempt to charge exorbitant fees are quite adequate. However, we go with the Minister to this extent: if he feels that as part of his overall price control proposals the solicitors' profession should be included they would not violently object to it provided reasonable provisions are put into this Bill to meet their requirements.
As I understand it, if this Bill becomes law without this amendment, the charges of solicitors will be submitted to a national prices commission, which I think will consist of a couple of industrialists, a housewife and a couple of trade unionists. I have no objection whatever to industrialists or to trade unionists or to housewives operating in their own spheres or in regard to matters which they are qualified technically to deal with. We in the solicitors' profession suggested to the Ministers for Justice and Industry and Commerce that, instead of the six statutory committees which are in existence at the present time and which are composed of the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court, other members of the Judiciary and members of the Bar and solicitors' profession, there should be one central costs committee set up and that on such a body should be represented the Judiciary, the professions concerned, specialists such as chartered accountants, and the general public.
If I could get an assurance from the Minister for Industry and Commerce that he would proceed to set up such a central costs committee, then I could tell him that the wishes of the Incorporated Law Society would be met to a very large extent under this heading because the Incorporated Law Society have been campaigning or negotiating with successive Ministers for Justice during the last number of years to get such a central costs committee established which would deal with contentious or non-contentious work, and that on that committee would be represented the Judiciary, who are independent, the professions mainly concerned, chartered accountants and the general public. Such a committee would be well qualified to deal with the charges.
I understood the Minister to say there is already machinery in the Bill to set up such a committee. I should like him to tell me what those provisions are. I should like him to go further and to tell me that he proposes to introduce an amendment spelling out in black and white that such a committee will be set up. I believe the machinery we are creating now cannot work or take the initiative unless the Minister consents to it doing certain things.
At the present time, if solicitors feel that charges should be revised upwards they can make proposals to one or other of those six statutory committees who can bring in a recommendation revising the costs. In regard to non-contentious costs, the Minister can invite either House of the Oireachtas to annul the recommendation. In the other cases the recommendations cannot have effect without the Minister's consent. If this legislation goes through unamended by my proposals, the position of solicitors will be worsened considerably because they will be handed over to a lay commission without any technical people. Furthermore, they will never be able to get before that commission inadequate as it may be, unless the Minister agrees, and the experience of the Incorporated Law Society has not been all that happy with the Department of Justice in years gone by—I will not say how long gone by.
I have been given the opportunity to say what I have said by the Minister's statement that he did not think he had been under all the pressure I suggested from the Incorporated Law Society to exclude the professions entirely from the Bill. He has met the society—I have not been on any deputations—but I will challenge him to deny that the atmosphere in which he and the Minister for Justice were approached was on the basis of the two requests I have now made—that a central costs committee be set up and that the Bill be altered to give the solicitors' profession or any other profession concerned direct access to that body. That was the basis on which the Council of the Incorporated Law Society approached the Minister. Perhaps the Minister will tell us if he agrees with that.
I should like to support Deputy Fitzpatrick on this amendment and to correct what I gather to be the Minister's impression of the motive for the amendment. It does not seek to exclude the legal profession from price control. It seeks to exclude control over legal costs from the Executive and to leave it as at present in the Oireachtas. This is the important distinction I should like to emphasise. The legal profession's costs are already subject to control in the ultimate by both Houses of the Oireachtas and all this Bill is doing is continuing control but proposing to give the ultimate power to an arm of the Executive, possibly the Minister for Justice if a commission is set up by him. The profession's grounds for objection to that is not a desire to have their charges brought out of the control of the Oireachtas. The Incorporated Law Society have made it clear that they do not object to price control as such but to that control being vested in the Executive instead of the Oireachtas.
In support of that, I want to emphasise what I emphasised on Second Reading, that the reason for this is that the solicitors' profession considers itself, and rightly considers itself, to be part of the judicial arm of the State and traditionally and constitutionally the judicial arm is independent of the Executive and I think it should be independent in all its aspects, all facets of its operation. If the Executive takes power to control the costs of part of the judicial arm, the Executive is interfering with and in breach of that principle of the separation of powers. This is an important point and one which the Minister has not yet answered. I made the point as I thought clearly on Second Reading and I would like the Minister to consider it now in relation to this amendment, emphasising again, and I cannot emphasise it too often because the point apparently has been missed, that the solicitors' profession does not seek exemption from price control. It merely asks that its costs be ultimately controlled by the Oireachtas as at present and not by the Executive as proposed in the Bill.
The Minister said that this amendment would exclude legal costs from price control, in his reply to Deputy Fitzpatrick. This is not the position. The amendment does not seek to exempt the legal profession from price control. The legal profession's costs are already controlled and what it seeks to do—and I ask the Minister to bear with me if I am boring him with repetition but I want to make the point extremely clear—is to leave the control in the hands of the Oireachtas, either the Dáil or Seanad, and not give it to the Executive. The theoretical basis for that distinction is the separation of powers which is a doctrine inherent in our constitutional democracy. If the Minister takes power to interfere with an arm of the court, in effect he is giving the Executive power to interfere with the judicial function of the State and, in rather a significant aspect, the power of that particular part of the judicial function to remunerate itself.
The Minister referred to the recent annulling of an order which sought an overall increase in legal fees of 42 per cent. That increase was not sought. What was sought was an increase of that percentage in relation to Schedule 2 items, a very limited range of solicitor's items, such as writing a letter or perusing a document—but in the case of the vast range of costs with regard to litigation and conveyancing, no increase was sought. The increase sought was in a very narrow field indeed and it was inaccurate for the Minister to say that the Minister for Justice had to annul an order granting an overall increase of 42 per cent. That was not sought.
Again, I ask the Minister to bear in mind when considering this amendment the point I am making, that what the law society and this amendment seek is to ensure that legal costs are controlled ultimately by the Oireachtas as good constitutional practice and not by the Minister as a member of the Executive. We do not seek for the solicitors' profession exclusion from price control. That already exists and the Minister has been informed by the law society that they welcome control and are quite agreeable to it, but they want the ultimate control to lie in the hands of this House or of the Seanad.
I agree with Deputy Cooney and Deputy Fitzpatrick except that I am a businessman and not a solicitor. How you can control any professional service is beyond me. If I have to have one of my children cured by an expert doctor, a doctor who is good in his field, a specialist, I am not worried about the cost, and the same applies also to solicitors. Am I now to be controlled to the extent that I must pay a good solicitor and a bad solicitor the same when I am willing to pay a good solicitor but not a bad solicitor?
In my view, this body is going to check a solicitor for overcharging. The official concerned can walk into the solicitor's office and can check, as far as I can read it, a file relating to me, a businessman, in that office. Nobody is entitled to touch my file in that office and if he touches my file, I take an action against him straight away for even looking at it, and if we are to have this, it means that the file of any businessman, any shopkeeper, any small or big man, in that office can be checked by the Minister and his Department eventually. I do not think they are entitled to do that and if they ever touch one of mine, I will take an action the following morning. They are interfering with matters relating to a person who has given no permission to a Department or whoever is assigned to check prices. Whatever file is checked, there must be permission to look at it and if that permission is refused, I do not think they can go near it. Above all, I feel that to control one solicitor against another, one barrister against another, one doctor against another, one accountant against another — for expert advice you pay a good man and are not willing to pay a bad man — means that you are putting them all in the one basket.
I have been provoked into commenting on the amendment. My view, which is purely a non-solicitor's view, is that what is sauce for the manufacturing gander must also be sauce for the professional goose, and much as I admire the special pleading, the very articulate pleading, of Deputy Cooney and the validity of a certain element in his argument, I do not think it is the overriding argument. If one wanted to engage in the follow-through which Deputy Cooney suggested, technically there is nothing to stop the National Prices Commission setting up such a working party under its jurisdiction, involving the grey eminences of the legal world and the Department of Justice and mutually arriving at a scale of fees which would be acceptable in the public interest. There is nothing to stop that happening, although the National Prices Commission, as such does not have formal Oireachtas standing.
I think we could perhaps make very heavy weather of the situation and it is in the public interest, I think, that in relation to such fees and not only the fees of State-sponsored bodies who are responsible to the Oireachtas in the last analysis—and we intend to go even further in our amendments later by bringing such things as local authority charges and education charges generally within the scope of the Bill —that the section should remain as the Minister has proposed. Much as I admire the professional expertise of Deputy Fitzpatrick and Deputy Cooney in advancing their case, as a trade union official, or former trade union official, I recognise a piece of special pleading when I see it.
For the umpteenth time and for Deputy Desmond's edification, I repeat that we do not want exemption from price control. The solicitors' profession is now controlled as to its prices and this Bill is not going to change that position. The law society, as the Minister has indicated, has told him that it does not want that position changed. It is agreeable to price control and welcomes it and recognises that it must be subject to price control. All that the society and the profession are objecting to is that the control should be in the hands of the Executive ultimately and not in the hands of the Parliament. That is the point we are making in relation to this amendment. We are not seeking exemption from the principle of control. We accept that, but as a matter of constitutional practice, we request that the control ultimately lie with this House or the Seanad. If that is special pleading, I am guilty.
I cannot accept this amendment which reads:
"(3) The Acts shall not apply to charges for services, the charges for which are, or may be, controlled, regulated, or specified either under any enactment, or any instrument made thereunder, or in discharge of any statutory power, duty or function."
It is nothing but an endeavour to elude the price control which I propose in this Bill. Deputy Cooney says that they are not trying to elude price control because the legal profession are sufficiently controlled at present. I do not accept this. There are a number of committees operating. The Minister for Justice spent some time in the Seanad on 23rd February explaining the reasons why he was not happy about the position. The Minister said that increases in property values—he was dealing with solicitors' fees-bringing in substantially increased remuneration since conveyancing costs are regulated on an ad valorem basis.
It might, perhaps, shorten things if I say to the Minister that it is conceded that control is necessary. This is conceded. Who exercises the control is the point that is at issue.
I can follow up what Deputy Fitzpatrick said. I wonder why both Deputies are making such a case to back this amendment which, as I see it, is not being sought by the legal profession. I have a letter dated 2nd June from the Incorporated Law Society.
(Cavan): Is the Minister prepared to accept what is requested, because if he is and writes it into the Bill that will certainly shorten the whole discussion.
I have a letter from the Incorporated Law Society which says that the Minister for Justice in a recent interview with the society's representatives gave them to understand that, if and when solicitors' remuneration is referred to him under section 7 of this Bill, he intends to refer the matter to a central costs committee on lines already discussed with him.
(Cavan): In all fairness, the Minister should read the whole letter.
I am reading the applicable part.
(Cavan): The Minister should put that letter on the record of the House.
The letter is quite a long one.
There have been long speeches here before.
I have not discussed with the Incorporated Law Society whether this letter should be put on the record of the House.
(Cavan): Officers of the Minister's Department have discussed it.
The Deputy will say that I should not have quoted from it at all. I wish to indicate that, over a month ago, the Minister for Justice had indicated to the Incorporated Law Society his intentions in regard to a central costs committee about which Deputy Fitzpatrick was making a case to me a while ago. Deputy Fitzpatrick also said in his second submission how inadequate the National Prices Commission would be——
(Cavan):“Inadequate” is a good word.
——and that they would not be able to deal with the cases put to them. In relation to the operation of the National Prices Commission over the past eight months, dealing with the business for which they were originally set up, which was to advise me in relation to price increases, at no stage has any manufacturer, group or organisation which sought to put their case to that commission been prevented from so doing.
(Cavan): If they were asked to inquire into something by the Minister——
My direction to the National Prices Commission is to advise me in relation to applications for increases. Other than that, they received no direction from me as to who they were or were not to meet. They had full freedom in regard to meeting whoever they wished.
(Cavan): Am I right in thinking that the National Prices Commission cannot inquire into the price of a commodity or a service unless requested by the Minister to do so?
The Deputy is not right.
(Cavan): Am I not right in saying that they cannot do so without the consent of the Minister?
The Deputy is not right, because when I get my monthly reports from the National Prices Commission I am shocked at the extent of their inquiries.
The Minister should be pleased.
I am shocked at the extent of their inquiries. They are an extremely active group of individuals.
They are stirring it up all right.
I have endeavoured on more than one occasion to pay tribute to the activities of the National Prices Commission. There is no doubt but that they are uninhibited by any action of mine.
(Cavan): Can the manufacturer of any particular commodity go to the National Prices Commission and ask them to have a look at his charges because he thinks they are not adequate?
Yes. The Incorporated Law Society will be sorry that they did not have recourse to the National Prices Commission.
That is a "no-go" area.
That last statement of mine that they would be sorry that they did not go to the National Prices Commission is a "wild" one. Deputy Fitzpatrick obviously does not appreciate that freedom of access to the National Prices Commission exists. They have full freedom. They are not prevented by me from investigating or processing any inquiry made to them by any manufacturer, retailer or distributor. The letter from the Incorporated Law Society indicates that the Minister for Justice, when this power will have been handed to him, regards it as likely to be necessary for him to set up a specific committee to advise him in regard to solicitors' costs. There are a large number of committees dealing with various legal fees. These committees must be an unwieldy group.
(Cavan): That is admitted. We have been trying to get rid of them and to get them replaced by one central costs committee.
I am giving them a great hand at the moment.
(Cavan): The Minister referred to a letter from the Incorporated Law Society. If my memory serves me well, that letter goes on to request that the assurance given by the Minister for Justice will be written into the Bill.
The assurance of access?
(Cavan): And that this specialised committee would be set up.
No. The Incorporated Law Society take the word of the Minister for Justice even if Deputy Fitzpatrick does not.
(Cavan): They ask for a guarantee.
It is a guarantee of direct access.
(Cavan): The Minister says that exists at present.
The guarantee of direct access to the National Prices Commission exists at present. We are talking about a body to be created by the Minister for Justice.
I am sure the Minister will agree that it is probably much better than having to go to the Department of Justice. One would probably get a fairer crack of the whip from the National Prices Commission.
(Cavan): I thought for a moment that the Minister and myself were not ad idem. I am satisfied now that we are. I am asking that a specialised committee be set up and that unqualified access to that committee be given.
No provision is made in this Bill. I did not see any necessity for making a provision in this Bill to ensure access by all the groups concerned to an advisory committee such as the National Prices Commission, because under the arrangements made by me since the National Prices Commission was set up in October last there was no necessity for writing in such an arrangement. I do not see any necessity for writing in such an arrangement because there is no problem in connection with this.
(Cavan): If the Minister were dealing with the Department of Justice he would see it.
There is a point which the Minister has not dealt with and that is the constitutional implication of this. I have made the point that the judicial arm of the State, of which the legal profession forms part, is separate and has to be separate from the Executive and legislative arms. This separation is being impinged on if the Minister permits the Executive, as will happen as a result of this Bill, to exercise control over the charges of part of the judicial arm. Has the Minister had any views on this as a matter with constitutional implications? Does he not consider that all legislation should observe that principle and that this central costs committee should be set up but that instead of reporting to the Minister for Justice or the Minister for Industry and Commerce it should be ultimately subject to this House and the Seanad? That is all we ask. Set up the central costs committee under this Bill, but let it in turn be subject to annulment by the House, or approval or amendment by either House. That is all we ask. We ask to have the constitutional niceties observed. They are important.
The Deputy is asking me if I accept that it is necessary to do this. The legal profession are people apart in this regard. That is what it boils down to. Their conduct may be influenced by repressive action by the Executive. As I said on Second Stage, this is a reflection on the profession by one of its members.
This is why we have the doctrine of the separation of powers which will ensure that the like will never happen again.
This is said also about the Judiciary and the Government influence on them. That is unjustified, as is any claim now being made.
To interfere with them would be repugnant to the Constitution. We are asking that all parts of the judicial arm of the State be in that position.
I do not accept that.
(Cavan): I gather, not from the Minister's most recent contribution but from his penultimate one, that he concedes and that the Minister for Justice is of the opinion that in certain circumstances a committee or a commission other than the National Prices Commission would be required to deal with certain charges.
I have read a letter from the Incorporated Law Society.
(Cavan): I understood the Minister to be quoting the letter with approval and that he was accepting the assurance of the Minister for Justice to the Incorporated Law Society. Apparently it is common that in regard to certain charges of a professional or technical nature—I am speaking now only of solicitors' charges—the ordinary National Prices Commission would not be adequate to deal with such charges and that it is envisaged that technical committees will be set up by other Departments to deal with charges of this nature. That is the case I am making, but something on those lines should be written into this legislation for the guidance of future Ministers. If this amendment is not accepted it should be written into this legislation that, where a Minister to whom the Minister for Industry and Commerce may refer a charge for the purpose of advising the Minister for Industry and Commerce on that charge, is of opinion that the matter at issue could be dealt with more properly by a special committee he shall set up such a committee and refer to them the charge for the services or the commodity in question. That is all I am asking. I do not think my request is unreasonable because the Minister's colleague admits that to refer this type of question to a committee consisting of two industrialists, two trade unionists and a housewife would not be adequate.
The point made so capably by Deputy Cooney to the effect that we are not asking here that the solicitors' profession be excluded from price control but are asking that the profession, like the Judiciary, should not be subject to the control of the Executive, can be made validly. For some reason or other the legal profession is never very popular with the Government. Perhaps this is because the legal profession stands between the Executive and the rights of the ordinary citizen. When we reach the stage that the legal profession, whether it be a single branch or a dual branch profession, loses its independence and becomes a glorified Civil Service, I would say that democracy in this country will have suffered a very severe blow. By degrees that day is being reached. An example of this chipping in on the profession was the handing over to the Civil Service of the workmen's compensation Act. I would not be surprised if there were some plans to deal in a similar way with personal and motoring accidents. The stage could be reached where the independence of the legal profession will be fritted away bit by bit. Then there would be no one to stand between the Executive and the ordinary citizen. That would be a sorry day for the country.
However, I am asking the Minister if he will accept the committee mentioned in the letter of July 2, if he will put something into the Bill that would guarantee the setting up of such committee and, further, whether he will write into the Bill that when such a committee is set up the legal profession will have the right to invoke that committee. I am not asking for a committee that would be loaded in favour of the legal profession. I want to be clear on that. What I want is a committee with adequate qualifications, adequate knowledge and sufficient experience to assess and deal with charges on a basis that would be fair both to the profession and to the client. That is not an unreasonable request. By reading the letter, I take it that the Minister is accepting the principle of a special committee. If he writes that into the Bill, would he think it unreasonable that, having set up a committee that would be acceptable to him, the people affected by it should have the right of access to it?
In relation to the application of the power which the Minister for Justice will have after the passing of this Bill, he has clearly indicated to the Incorporated Law Society that he will be setting up a special committee to deal with their case.
(Cavan): He did not deal with the right of access.
Prices advisory committees and prices advisory bodies are set up to advise the Minister on matters appertaining to prices. These bodies are designed to deal with applications for increases. Now nobody can adequately advise a Minister unless the applicants for increases have access to the body and a properly constituted advisory body will not work unless those who want to make a case before it can get through to it.
(Cavan): And can put it into motion.
Exactly. Deputy Fitzpatrick argues that the prices committee as at present constituted would not appear to be the type of balanced committee which could deal adequately with an application from the solicitors' profession for an improvement in their fees. All I can say is that one will get a decision from such a body with much greater rapidity than one would get a decision from a committee constituted of members of the legal profession.
(Cavan): I hope the decision will be a lot quicker than one will get from the Department of Justice.
It took from 1964 to 1972 to process the last order and get a decision from this multitude of committees about which the Deputy himself spoke a short time ago. Both Deputy Cooney and Deputy Fitzpatrick were singing the praises of these committees a short time ago.
Not singing the praises of.
Defending.
No.
The purpose of this amendment is to leave control of legal fees where it was placed under the 1888 Act. This would leave control in the hands of the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court, the senior ordinary judge of the Supreme Court and the president of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland. This is the group which would fix fees at the request of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland. I want to ensure that increases being sought by the legal profession will be examined by a group of people in a position to look at those proposed increases more critically and more objectively than would be the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court, the senior ordinary judge of the Supreme Court and the president of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland because I do not accept that the present situation should be maintained.
Nobody does. The Minister has missed the point. We are talking to the air.
If the amendment is accepted, then the section in the Bill will not apply to the legal profession.
The amendment was designed to ensure that ultimate control will be in the Oireachtas and not in the hands of the Executive. That is all we want.
The object of the amendment, as I read it, is to preserve the status quo as far as professional legal charges are concerned. I am not satisfied that the status quo is correct. The arrangements which the Minister for Justice has conveyed to the Incorporated Law Society are, in fact, what Deputy Fitzpatrick started out to plead for when he spoke here earlier this afternoon.
(Cavan): The Minister is being unfair and consciously so, I fear. The object of the amendment is to remove charges which are already regulated from this Bill, but the Minister stops there. He knows perfectly well that a long, painful correspondence and negotiations have been going on between the Incorporated Law Society and the Minister for Justice to substitute for these six committees one central costs committee composed of a member of the Judiciary——
What does the amendment seek?
(Cavan): I knew the Minister was being consciously unfair. He knows that the Incorporated Law Society have been negotiating with the Minister for Justice to scrap these six committees and substitute for them a central costs committee of a broad-based character representative of the Judiciary, the professions, the chartered accountants and the industrial sector. That is the type of committee the society want and it is not right for the Minister to say that the proposal is to remove control from this Bill and to leave it exactly where it is at present. That is not the proposal.
The Deputy has not explained the amendment.
(Cavan): I have. The Minister knows what is going on. He has a letter which he will not read. He has a letter dated 2nd June on his file which he is prepared to read in part to suit his own case but which he is not prepared to read in full and of which he would not give me a copy so that I could read it.
That is very unfair.
(Cavan): Will the Minister give me a copy of it? If I had time I could get one.
Why ask me for a copy? I do not see why the Incorporated Law Society would not give the Deputy a copy.
(Cavan): It is not all that confidential. The Minister has read part of the letter to suit his own case but he will not read the whole letter. He knows that the Incorporated Law Society's proposal is not a proposal to take itself out of the Bill and retain the status quo. That is not the proposal. That amendment was put down months ago and since then there have been discussions between the Minister and the society and between the Department of Justice and the society. The Minister need not try to score neat debating points here. He knows from experience that amendments are put down as a Parliamentary device to make a case for the amendment of a Bill not necessarily in the detailed terms of the Bill. Ministers are invariably told:
"If you do not like that amendment we will withdraw it if you undertake to introduce another amendment in terms acceptable to you."
I shall withdraw this amendment if the Minister tells me that he will amend the Bill in the Seanad or elsewhere so as to provide that solicitors' costs will be measured by a committee of the type in the letter of 2nd June to his Department. I shall withdraw the amendment if I get an assurance that solicitors' costs will be regulated by a committee of the kind mentioned in the letter of 2nd June from the Incorporated Law Society to his Department and quoted with approval by him and that the solicitors' profession will have access to that committee. That is all I ask and all the society ask. I shall not sit down or allow this discussion to conclude with the Minister putting me or the Incorporated Law Society on the wrong foot or suggesting that we are asking for something for which we are not asking. That is what the Minister is trying to do.
The Minister says his colleague, the Minister for Justice, accepted the specialised committee; would he put that into the Bill? The Minister for Industry and Commerce did not meet a deputation from the law society but I have no doubt that the substance of the discussion between the society's representatives and the officials of the Minister's Department were put clearly before the Minister, that a section should be written into the Bill giving the profession access to the specialised committee. This is not an unreasonable request because already in existence we have a type of regulation of solicitors' fees and this has existed in one form or another since 1884. The Minister said that procedure is unsatisfactory. If so, and if he is inviting an old-established profession to accept another type of regulation there should be dialogue between the Minister and the profession. There should be discussion between the Department of Justice and the Department of Industry and Commerce on the one hand and the governing body of the solicitors' profession on the other, the Minister representing the general public and the society representing the profession. As a result of that discussion a system which would be acceptable to both sides and also fair and just to the public should be worked out. I do not believe that would be very difficult. I do not believe the precise problem I am dealing with here is unique and peculiar to the solicitors' profession. There may be other types of service that can only be fairly judged and assessed by a specialised committee.
I ask the Minister, with the assistance he has behind him, to write into the Bill a provision so that when remuneration or charges for service of that type are to be regulated, they shall be regulated by a special committee to be set up by the appropriate Minister and that once it is set up all interested parties shall be entitled to call it into action.
It is in regard to that request that the Minister appears to be reluctant to move. He will give me an assurance that a specialised committee will be set up and he refers me to the word of the Minister for Justice for that but he is not prepared to say that that committee shall remain in existence and that it will be open to any person or body concerned to apply to that committee to fix the remuneration of the profession. That is all that is being asked and it just will not do for the Minister to say that some other sort of a case is being made because it is not. I am telling the Minister now, without qualification, that I will withdraw amendment No. 1 if the Minister accedes to the two requests in the letter from the Incorporated Law Society to his Department dated 2nd June, 1972. Can anything be clearer than that? I will withdraw this amendment and terminate this debate, as far as I am concerned, if the Minister accedes to the two points contained in that letter — a specialised committee with free access.
Deputy Fitzpatrick came out with all guns firing. I can tell him that his threat of withdrawing this amendment——
(Cavan): It is not a threat at all.
It is, and I daresay the Incorporated Law Society would not thank him for going through with that amendment because that is not what they would be looking for anyway. There is no point in threatening me with that amendment in trying to extract a promise under those two headings. I have clearly said, and it is more clear from the discussions that were held between the officials of my Department and the Incorporated Law Society than it is here this afternoon, that the Incorporated Law Society do not want to get out from under the umbrella of price control as was stated by Deputy Cooney. They were obviously fearful, and put this to the Minister for Justice, because they felt that the National Prices Commission, which at present advises me in relation to applications for price increases, was not the type of qualified body that they felt was appropriate to investigate their applications. It appears that the Minister for Justice accepted this and indicated to them that he proposed to set up a central costs committee. I went further and said that I could not imagine a central costs committee operating without that committee giving access to whatever section of the legal profession would be endeavouring to make a case at a particular time. I said that it could not be operated properly without that type of arrangement. Because of that and because of my experience and knowledge of the activities and actions of the National Prices Commission and prices advisory bodies since 1965 I know it is unnecessary to write in a provision in the Bill guaranteeing access from an affected party to the particular advisory body which will be dealing with an application for price increases, service charge increases and so on. The operation of an advisory committee as such is, and should be to consult with all sides involved.
A provision for meetings or for direct access to that committee by affected parties is totally unnecessary. I am aware of the fact that amendments can be put in the three weeks or a month before the next stage of a Bill is taken and the amendments may appear to be, in the context of the situation then, out of date, but not alone would the amendment remove the power of control over the legal profession but would remove the power of control over a wide range of professional services.
(Cavan): What other professional services would escape under that?
Has the Minister for Justice some power at the moment in relation to auctioneers?
(Cavan): No.
He should have.
I think he has some power. I claim that if that amendment were accepted he would not have.
(Cavan): It deals only with those already regulated.
Badly regulated. Deputy Cooney talked about the rights of this House under the existing arrangement. I think that in his anxiety to be dead right he went a bit far because there is the arrangement that costs in respect of non-contentious business, other than non-contentious probate and administration and registered conveyancing, have to come to the House. The order is laid before the House and passes through unless opposed. On the other hand, non-contentious probate and administration and registered conveyances are regulated by rules which the Minister for Justice, without the need to come to the House, can disallow.
In relation to my reference to the 42 per cent—Deputy Cooney can check the record afterwards—I made a particular point of saying 42 per cent increases in certain sectors of their business.
No.
I hope the record will bear me out on that one. I was rather careful about it. I was conscious of the fact because I had been studying the debate in the Seanad. Half the business—I do not know whether it is the bigger or the smaller half— that is a wrong description——
(Cavan): That is the half that is not charged for in most cases.
Could the Deputy introduce me to that office? I would love to find it.
Surely the Minister never wanted charity in his life?
No, but there is the opposite of charity—overcharging.
That is not a fair point.
I am accepting that you do not get charity any more than you get overcharging.
You do.
Fair enough. I think the House should not be too worried. There is no need for any apprehension about affected parties not having the opportunity of making their case to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is not doing its job unless the people affected have the opportunity of getting to them. What Deputy Fitzpatrick is endeavouring to achieve would hardly be achieved by pressing this amendment.
(Cavan): Could the Minister refer me to the statutory provision which gives the ordinary citizen the right to get the commission into action? Has he the right to have an inquiry held into the price of a commodity or a fee charged?
If an ordinary citizen writes to the National Prices Commission saying that he was overcharged for a packet of cornflakes the National Prices Commission will write to the Department of Industry and Commerce. If a shoal of letters came in to the National Prices Commission about overcharging they would probably recommend to me that I should get my officials to investigate the complaint.
(Cavan): Would they come to the Minister before they started the investigation or would they ask the Minister to start the investigation?
The National Prices Commission use the staff of my Department.
(Cavan): With the Minister's consent?
Yes. I do not think the point the Deputy is endeavouring to make at the moment is relevant to the problem which he is trying to solve.
(Cavan): The point I am trying to make—and I hope it is clear—is that I want to have a committee which the public can call upon to investigate solicitors' charges if they think they are too high, and which solicitors can call upon to investigate solicitors' charges if they think they are too low. That is the type of committee I want. Does the Minister see anything wrong with that? The machinery at the moment could be there for years and, unless the Minister thought fit to agree that something should be investigated, it might never investigate anything. I want a specialised committee which could be called upon by the Incorporated Law Society to look at solicitors' charges in a certain field, or in general, with a view to revising them. I do not think that is an unreasonable request.
At present a manufacturer who has had increased costs makes application to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, not to the Prices Advisory Body, and every application for a price increase is automatically passed over to the National Prices Commission.
(Cavan): As of right?
No.
(Cavan): It took us a long time to get at this.
Not as a right. Every application I get for an increase goes to the National Prices Commission for their observations and recommendations. I have accepted every recommendation they made. My understanding of the situation is that the Minister for Justice, to whom this power will be handed over in relation to certain sectors of professional charges, has indicated that he will set up a central cost committee and, if the same format is followed the application will be submitted from the Incorporated Law Society, or whoever it is, to the Minister for Justice and he will refer it to the cost committee for their recommendations. That will be the pattern. I can see no reason why that application should not be investigated in the same way as the cost control within my Department——
(Cavan): I have no doubt that once an inquiry started that procedure would be followed. Otherwise it would not be sensible. It would be meaningless. I want to give to the Incorporated Law Society the right to call on a committee to start an inquiry. It is now clear from what the Minister said that that must be done through the Minister.
Yes.
(Cavan): That is what I object to. I put that question to the Minister earlier and obviously we were not ad idem on it because I got another answer.
If I said they have direct access I was going on my experience within my own Department. While the application comes from the Minister it works out as being direct access because it goes on as a straightforward operation from my Department to the National Prices Commission which meets within that Department. Any application for a price increase goes through the medium of the Minister. I do not see the problem here. The suggestion that the Minister for Justice will sit on it for 12 months before passing it on——
(Cavan): There is no doubt that the Committee Stage procedure in the House is very useful. It is now clear, as I thought at the start, that under price control as operated by the National Prices Commission, ordinary citizens, or a group of citizens, have not access to the commission to have their complaint or request investigated except through the Minister for Industry and Commerce. That is clear and established. I thought that was the case but the Minister seemed to tell me earlier on that it was not.
I could suggest an amendment: "There shall be established for the purposes of the solicitors' profession a central cost committee and the Minister for Justice shall refer to that committee any question relating to the charges of the profession." That is all I am asking for and I do not think it is too much. The Minister for Justice could act as judge and jury. A request could go to him and he could say: "That was fixed two years ago. That is all right. We are not going back there any more." All we want is the right to set in motion the machinery of the National Prices Commission or a specialised sub-committee.
I am now satisfied that I have pinpointed a shortcoming in the procedure which the Minister wants to impose on the profession. At present they can refer the question of their charges to a committee, to one of six committees, with which I do not agree. At least they can get a decision from that committee. They can get a decision for or against their proposal. In the new circumstances that will prevail when this Bill becomes an Act there will be no committee or no independent body to which the legal profession will have access without the consent of the Minister. That is as clear as day and that is what I object to. The Minister is scrapping one system of fee control and he is substituting for it a right of veto for himself because, if people do not get to this commission, it cannot make a recommendation.
It is all right for the Minister to say that his experience in the past has been that this was invariably done. I am telling him that the experience of the Incorporated Law Society was that it was difficult, impossible on occasions, under various Ministers for Justice, to get anything done. There was stalling. That is what I want to avoid. It is not the Minister's Department that I am talking about. I am talking about the Department of Justice and the experience of the Incorporated Law Society with that Department. Therefore, I want to conclude by at least getting this on the record: as the present system of cost control, which has lasted for nearly 100 years, is being abolished, I want the Minister to set up in lieu thereof a central cost committee on which the professions, the public and specialists like accountants will be represented and that the Incorporated Law Society, as the body representing the solicitors' profession, would have the right to call on that central cost committee to investigate any particular field of charges and to advise the Minister on it and that if the Minister were to reject that advice he would have to do it in public and in this House. That is what I am asking and I do not think it is unreasonable.
Let me reply by saying that I do not see any point in prolonging this discussion. I have endeavoured to explain the matter fully to the Deputy. I can only say that I am not going to give any more consideration to the legal profession than to any other profession.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section I agreed to.
SECTION 2.
As amendment No. 6 is consequential on amendment No. 2, perhaps the House would discuss the two amendments together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 2, subsection (1), after line 14, to insert the following paragraph:
"(a) activities carried on by railway undertakings and road transport undertakings, and".
This amendment arises from a recommendation which was made to me by the National Prices Commission. Originally they considered that power might be taken under this Bill to have included all the activities covered under section 5 (a) of the 1958 Act, which were included under that Act, Following discussions, I considered that it was inappropriate that the activities of the various Departments of State, local organisations, vocational educational committees, harbour authorities should come within the scope of the Prices Act as that could lead to unacceptable confusion as to the functions and responsibilities of various Ministers. I was prepared to agree that the activities of railway undertakings and road transport undertakings should be included. There is also the question of air transport undertakings and water transport undertakings but, following considerable consideration, I came to the conclusion that, as we have no internal water transport service and as cross-channel shipping is at present the subject of ruthless competition, there was no great advantage to be gained by taking power under this Bill to control water transport. The same argument applied in relation to air transport. On the overall, then, I decided that I should move this amendment to include the control of activities carried on by railway undertakings and road transport undertakings.
To the exclusion of the others?
To the exclusion of the others. Amendment No. 6 is straightforward and makes the necessary change consequential on the passing of amendment No. 2.
The first thing I want to say about this is that I want an absolute definition of the inclusions proposed by the Minister. The Minister mentions "activities carried on by railway undertakings and road transport undertakings". I want to know the exact definition of the word "activities". As far as road transport undertakings are concerned, does it include not only the activities of CIE, private operators providing bus services or mini-bus services and transport for persons in any other way but also the movement of goods and, in relation to railways, are goods included as well as persons?
The Minister used the expression "after discussion". He decided, after discussion, that it would not be wise to have harbour charges, vocational educational committee charges, local authority charges, water transport charges, and so on, included. In regard to water transport, he used the argument that we have not got, as they have on the Rhine and on the canals in Holland, a vast amount of water transport, mainly of goods. There is a water transport service across the Irish Sea which, with the exception of the intervention of Dutch and other coasters, is a monopoly or a cartel of two or three groups. I should like to know in relation to this situation what discussions the Minister had and with whom and the reasons why he changed his mind and excluded these activities from the operation of the Bill.
The other thing mentioned is air transport. Everybody who uses planes knows that there are certain flights on which usually very good business is done and charges made on those flights are very heavy charges. Those planes make very good profits. In other instances there are services which have to be provided as long as we wish to remain a civilised nation. They provide the sort of services it is necessary to provide and must run at a loss. Any sane person would accept that as proper procedure for any State company to indulge in but there is the question of charges made for holiday trips to Spain and other places.
The amendment deals with rail and road transport and there is nothing in it about air transport.
The Minister quite specifically indicated that after discussions he decided not to include water and air transport. While I accept your ruling and the fact that I must not discuss what is not in the amendment, if the Minister indicates to me matters he is going to exclude after discussion, I should like to know with whom he had discussions and also if he had thought of the various reasons why he should not exclude them. I could introduce an amendment on Report Stage to cover what I have in mind but on this Stage I would like to say that the Minister should explain in greater detail why air transport and water transport are excluded. I should like to know with whom he had discussions.
As far as the discussions are concerned, they were with my colleagues, mainly the Minister for Transport and Power. I have indicated that the items which are excluded were already excluded under the 1958 Act. Section 5 of that Act states:
This Act does not apply to any of the following:
(a) activities carried on by or on behalf of a Minister of State, a local authority, within the meaning of the Local Government Act, 1941 (No. 23 of 1941), a vocational education committee, a railway, road, air or water transport undertaking or a harbour authority.
A number of those are local government, such as the vocational education committee.
Is this where the Minister had discussions?
They would be departmental. To get back to the ones the Deputy particularly mentioned, the air and water rates, they would arise specically in discussions with the Minister for Transport and Power. The international air fares and rates which are of a highly complex and technical nature are settled internationally between the airlines through the rate fixing machinery of the International Air Transport Association, about which we hear so much. IATA agreements on air fares and rates are subject to Government approval but if IATA fail to reach agreement it would be a matter for the Governments concerned to negotiate one. This procedure is embodied in many of our air transport bilateral agreements with other States which also provide that in the event of deadlock at government level the matter should be referred to international arbitration. Domestic air fares must be dealt with within the context of international affairs.
The Deputy spoke about sea transport between this country and the UK particularly. I have often heard it said that the dearest bit of sea in the world to cross is the Irish Sea. I gave consideration to the possibility of endeavouring to include water transport from that point of view but it is rather difficult. No matter what the Deputy may say about a cartel or a monopoly the fact remains that it is almost impossible to endeavour to control a price charge between one country and another where we have not overall control over it. We could have a situation where we endeavour to control the price from Dublin to Liverpool, but we have no control over the price between Liverpool and Dublin for rather obvious reasons. I am reluctant to take into this Bill some power which I find it impossible to implement. That was my particular reason for not endeavouring to embrace water transport control and air control in this Bill. The Deputy asks for a wider definition of railway and roads.
I asked for a clearer one.
It is my intention to endeavour to control all railway and road passenger and freight charges as comprehensively as it is stated.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 2, subsection (1), line 26, after "insurance", to insert "in relation to (i) brokers, (ii) agents, (iii) direct charges paid as premiums to insurance companies,".
I am trying here to be quite specific and to ensure that we are embracing all the charges. I know that the phraseology "charges for services rendered in connection with insurance" might, in fact, be taken to refer to all that I want it to refer to but I feel that a better phraseology and a more definite instruction and direction in relation to this Bill would be if "brokers, agents and direct charges paid as premiums were specified". That is the reason for my amendment. It is really an amendment of clarification of definition. I believe it is necessary that this amendment should be inserted because you might get a situation where insurance companies could be asked to provide certain payments at the end of the period when the premiums are all paid and to give certain minimum profits. There might, at the same time, be other things and it would be far better to have the assurance that I now provide in this amendment inasmuch as it specifies those three items which it seems to me are the three things which are of importance.
I appreciate what the Deputy is endeavouring to get at here. I might be able to help him if I point out that specifically excluded in section 5 (h) of the 1958 Act are:
charges for services rendered in connection with banking or insurance.
That was the exclusion and that meant that everything was covered under the Bill except the items mentioned in that section. The Minister had the power to control everything else except charges for services rendered in connection with insurance. This takes out that exclusion which therefore makes it completely embracing in so far as everything to do with insurance, by reason of the statement "charges for services rendered in connection with insurance" is, in fact, more comprehensive because it withdraws the exclusion of the 1958 Act.
Deputy Donegan, in his amendment, tried to consolidate the position, as I see it from his point of view. He spells out "charges in relation to brokers, agents and direct charges paid as premiums to insurance companies". If I were to accept that amendment it could lead to great difficulty. You could find some new type of person coming up calling himself a collector. He might be able to get some new name for himself and he would be excluded by reason of the fact that it is spelt out in the Bill:
charges for services rendered in connection with insurance in relation to...
A person might be able to escape in relation to something else which is not specified because of the basic comprehensiveness of section 2 (1) (d).
I accept the Minister's explanation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 2, subsection (1), after line 26 to insert the following paragraph:—
"(e) activities carried on by or on behalf of a Minister for State, a local authority, within the meaning of the Local Government Act, 1941 (No. 23 of 1941), a vocational education committee or a harbour authority."
It is our submission that the activities of the bodies mentioned in the amendment involve a major element of cost and that it is, therefore, entirely appropriate that the charges levied by a local authority, the vocational education committee or harbour authority should come under the Act and, where necessary, be subject to investigation by the National Prices Commission.
We in the Labour Party feel that what is sauce for the private goose in this legislation is also sauce for the public gander. We do not regard price control as being appropriate only to the private sector. We think it should also extend to the charges of State sponsored bodies, to Government Departments and to local authorities, and that the proposed increases should be submitted not only to the appropriate Department but also to the National Prices Commission. I know the National Prices Commission have taken certain initiatives in that area, but we believe that this amendment proposed by us should not be disregarded by the Minister. We suggest these charges should be the subject of the closest scrutiny even where they may require ministerial or Departmental sanction.
The bodies I have mentioned are not exposed to the full rigour of commercial competition and restraints. They do not have to face the consequences of bankruptcy or commercial failure, and very frequently they are in a monopoly situation. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that they should be brought within the scope of the Act, thus ensuring proper financial accountability within such undertakings in the national interest.
The Deputy and the House generally must appreciate the type of job this Labour Party amendment would be endeavouring to hand over to the National Prices Commission. One of the activities of a local authority is to strike an increased rate annually. Such increases have a rather serious effect on the public pocket, and in March of each year the National Prices Commission would be asked to examine the question of the justification for the increase in the rate of 40p, 50p, or 60p in the £ for every local authority in the country. This comes within the control of the Minister for Local Government, and the Government itself has its own responsibility and endeavours to tackle that problem in its own way.
The Deputy says that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I have already moved an amendment here involving the taking over of control of road and rail transport. This will mean looking more closely at applications from CIE for increased charges for both freight and passenger services. There is a greater awareness at the level of the Department of Industry and Commerce of the overall effect of general increases, and one of the things we have had too much of in various sectors down through the years is the duplication of services. I have taken railway and road out of the old section 5 (a) and have decided to maintain the other exclusions that were first introduced in 1958. The amendment to which Deputy Desmond has subscribed seeks to include the rest of the items that were excluded with the exception of air and water transport undertakings. He asked that I should embrace it in this legislation. It does not make sense to me and I cannot see my way to accepting the amendment.
When dealing with the first amendment, I pointed out that individual Ministers such as the Ministers for Local Government, Education and Transport and Power can exercise controls under existing legislation. For instance, controls in relation to rates, which are the responsibility of the Minister for Local Government, cannot be as successful as one might wish because rates are controlled by the demands made. I do not know which aspect of vocational education the Deputy has in mind, perhaps it is charges for term classes, but the Minister for Education has sufficient power to cover that situation. The Minister for Transport and Power has comprehensive powers in relation to harbour authorities who have to apply for his sanction for any increase in charges. Any Minister who wishes at any stage to do so could make use of the advice of the NPC who on more than one occasion in the past have expressed themselves as more than willing to carry out investigations at the request of any Department. The activities which the Deputy by his amendment is asking me to include in the Bill are too broad and my straightforward reply is that there is power in existing legislation to deal with them.
I can see the Minister's difficulty in that this would involve a division of responsibility as between individual Ministers, but let us take the example of a local authority fixing rents on a new scheme of houses. They are subject to the sanction of the Minister for Local Government and it might well be that on examining the financial situation in relation to a scheme of houses the Minister might be unfair in fixing a high scale of differential rents. To my mind a Minister should be subject to the same control as a private operator in such matters.
I appreciate that the Ministers for Local Government and Finance are more involved in these matters than the Minister now in the House. It is true that decisions on prices are made with the sanction of the Minister for Local Government. In Drogheda the income from lease rents is in the order of £10,000 a year. Rents are subject to the sanction of the Minister for Local Government but along the line there is the probability of an injustice being done to individual citizens. I think Deputy Desmond is correct. We should not forget that local authorities and other such bodies exact prices and if we are to be true to the principle of this Act, then we should bring all prices into its ambit. The Bill starts out in section 2 to deal with services and commodities to be brought under regulations and subject to the Act. I take the view that all matters affecting prices should be subject to the Act, although I appreciate the difficulties from the point of view of legislation.
I do not have the terms of reference of the NPC before me but I would be satisfied if the Minister would assure me there is nothing to debar any Minister from seeking advice from the NPC by way of an ocasional report or of consultant work done on harbours throughout the country or in relation to vocational education fields or in other specific areas of local authority charges. These tend to become the internal preserves of the Departments concerned with them and these areas of public administration into which major cost elements enter should be subject to scrutiny by the prices body if the ordinary consumer, the man in the street, is to be dealt with fairly. I do not suggest that the NPC should do an analysis every year of proposed rate increases by local authorities but I suggest that certain areas of local authority administration should be subject to NPC scrutiny at the request of an individual Minister. If I could have that understanding from the Minister, I think we would be moving in the right direction.
I have said there is nothing to stop any Department from seeking the advice of the NPC in relation to any aspect they would want covered. I would point out to Deputy Donegan that even if this amendment were accepted rents would not come under the heading of a commodity or a service or work done for profit. While not specifically excluded, rent is not included. I have not power under this legislation to investigate rent increases.
I am not being critical of the Minister but I submit that this legislation should be all embracing. It has been said "not on bread alone doth man live". Therefore, if we are to investigate prices we should do so in relation to the necessaries of life, one of which is where a person lays his head at night. I do not wish to proceed by way of telling stories but I give this as an instance. I know a house in which a friend of mine lived 20 years ago. It has one bathroom and five rooms over a shop. Four families, one to a room, live in it. The lowest rent is £4.50 a week, the highest £6.50. The gross income from that floor above a shop is £1,150. The rates on that floor would be £100, netting £1,000 from one floor of an ordinary house. They are all sharing the same bathroom and other toilet facilities. One has a husband in a psychiatric home and two have unemployed husbands.
Would the Minister consider on Report Stage deciding to investigate rents? If he did so, he would get the full support of this party and I am sure that Deputy Desmond will say that he would get the full support of the Labour Party. This would be a completely non-political matter and I am referring in particular to the furnished room and flat because apparently this is the area of least right for the tenant. I find myself at fault that I did not put down an amendment to include rents, as spokesman for my party on this legislation, but I rise now in no spirit of criticism of the Minister or the Government, but merely to say that justice would be done if on the Report Stage or in the Seanad, the Minister took the opportunity to decide to investigate rents and particularly the rents of furnished flats. These people not only must eat and buy shoes and clothes for their children but must also provide something for themselves and their children to lie on at night and to live in by day.
We have now uncovered something which is quite fundamental to this prices legislation. My belief is that absolutely everything should be included in this legislation—I do not know what one does with diamonds but we can leave them out. The ordinary necessaries of life and all the things used in life, even to the extent of beer and such commodities, should be investigated under this legislation and should be bound by it, if anything is to be bound. That perhaps might be arguing against my two colleagues but we can leave that aside. The Minister is not going to score that point off me but if you sincerely believe that it is the right way to do it, that item of rents must be included.
I am fully aware that there are two other Departments involved here and that we are in a most difficult legislative position. There is the Department of Justice in relation to the various Landlord and Tenant Acts, 1931 and 1958, the Ground Rents Act of 1967 and all the others. They are involved on the basis of tenants' rights and landlords' rights. The Department of Local Government are also involved and I can see a difficulty as between these various Ministers. I accept the Government's difficulty in this regard but there is the fundamental point which must be driven home, that not on bread alone doth man live but that one of the fundamental things is a roof over his head. I give you what I was told in my "clinic" last night when I was shown a rent book with a list of tenants' rights on the inside page which I am having copied to show to a legal man. I have been looking at statutes for 18 years and I have no right to say I know anything about them, but my view is that it was all of no consequence and gave no rights of any kind to the tenant. When we are putting a Prices Bill through the Dáil, the Government— and I am certain they will have both the Labour Party and Fine Gael behind them—should decide to fix rents and allow a tenant if he wishes to apply to an agency and have his housing circumstances examined and the rent fixed. It would, I admit, be a massive job but well worth the trouble. Can we have a situation in which in a shop downstairs you fix the price of a tin of soap powder, a loaf or an apple for a kiddie, while upstairs you have a house providing a net income of £1,000 a year from a furnished flat, the tenant having no rights but the right to a reasonable time to get out of it? We have reached the stage now at which on Report Stage or in the Seanad the Minister must consider including rents.
Deputy Donegan makes a very logical argument about rents and points to the difficulty existing as between the jurisdictions of three different Departments. He says that it would be nice if we could have a Prices (Amendment) Bill which would be comprehensive and cover a wide field. This matter will be coming up on the proposed withdrawal of section 3, but there is the need to get ahead with my prices control legislation and the difficulty of hammering out a satisfactory section to cover comprehensively new house prices. I know that the Minister for Justice has for quite some time been actively engaged in looking at the particular problems to which the Deputy referred in relation to the rents of furnished flats and the inadequacy of the protection for the tenant of such a flat. The situation being as it is, it would be wrong for me, in my effort to get this legislation through, to convey the impression at this stage that I would be in a position to introduce an amendment on Report Stage covering every field the Deputy has covered. In fact, I look upon that as demanding quite positively a separate piece of legislation because it is a field in which there are problems. The Deputy has expressed a view which will be shared generally in the House that on the broad details, a Minister introducing legislation covering this type of thing would get the full support of the House, but one gets down then to the nitty-gritty things and there are a great many of them in legislation which endeavours to cover these fields, the renting of furnished flats.
I have rambled a bit because in talking about this amendment, I think I have conveyed my view that the field is very wide. Deputy Donegan spoke from the point of view that these matters were pretty adequately covered by existing legislation and the powers of other Ministers and it was from there that he went ahead into the field which he covered. I can only reiterate what I said already, that I am satisfied that the powers at present vested in the respective Ministers for Local Government, Education and Transport and Power in relation to the matters dealt with in the amendment are sufficient and this was the reason why I have not included these items in the Bill and why I am opposing the amendment.
The Labour Party's amendment is a very good one in certain aspects—perhaps it is difficult to agree to it in its entirety—because the Minister. Deputy Desmond and I all know that the main task of the Minister for Local Government is to get more capital moneys to build more houses—and one way is to exact more money from the tenants, lease rent-holders and various other people in the community. If a price is a price, a rent is a price and a lease rent is also a price. If the Minister and his Department in their desire to build more houses are being unjust to a single citizen, or to 10,000 citizens, that injustice is caused by a price. There should be some method under the price-fixing legislation whereby rent is taken into account. I am trying to be helpful, not difficult or destructive. Many times I have seen this in the course of my work on local authorities. I have seen decisions from the Department of Local Government, or refusals which I believed to be unfair. I knew that the Department wanted more money.
I can think of other instances where, in my view, a citizen has got away with "financial murder". There should be somewhere one can go if one is concerned about rents. If a rent is too high, the unfortunate ladies to whom I was speaking last night cannot buy food for their children. The amount of the rent is as fundamental as the price of the food. I know that the Minister has difficulty with this legislation. The Minister for Justice and the Minister for Local Government have been looking at this matter for the 18 years I have been in the House. Perhaps we should give them further help to reach a decision. The Minister might look at this between now and the Report Stage to see if he can include rents on houses in this legislation. The Minister said he would not agree to this just for the purpose of getting this Bill through. He will not be impeded in this Bill by me. The Minister knows my form: I make statements, but I do not hold up legislation if that legislation is necessary for the people. The Minister might undertake to have a look at this between now and the next Stage, without feeling he is pressurising anybody.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 2, subsection (1), to delete lines 27 and 28 and to substitute the following:
"and, accordingly, in paragraph (a) of section 5 of the Principal Act `an air' is hereby substituted for `a railway, road, air' and paragraphs (b), (c) and (g) and `or insurance' in paragraph (h) of the said section 5 are hereby repealed.".
Amendment agreed to.
The Minister has an amendment to delete section 3 altogether.
We have not come to that section yet. Let us deal with section 2 first.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3.
In regard to section 3, there are two amendments, Nos. 7 and 8. Amendment No. 8 is an alternative to amendment No. 7, but the Minister proposes that section 3 should be deleted. Perhaps Deputies concerned would not wish to move amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
Before I concede that, I would like to know why the Minister wants to delete section 3. Would that not be a logical sequence of events? If the Minister told us why, we might not want to move the amendments. But if we did not agree, we might want to move them.
May I say that the specific reason for my wishing to delete the section—I hinted at it a moment ago when dealing with a point raised by Deputy Donegan—is because of the impossibility of incorporating a sufficiently comprehensive control over the price of new houses in a measure like this. The Minister for Local Government and I had discussions about this and we found that the task would be exceedingly difficult and very time-consuming. The position now is that the Minister for Local Government will formulate whatever arrangements are necessary to enable an effective system of control to be prepared. The Government Information Bureau issued a statement last week indicating that, since he was primarily concerned with housing, it was preferable that he should be responsible for the control of house prices. As an interim measure, therefore, he proposes to refuse to allocate grants, or to reduce or withhold grants in cases in which prices do not appear to him to represent reasonable value. That is why I am now asking the House to delete section 3 of this Bill.
Concurrent with the action being taken by the Minister for Local Government, the National Prices Commission announced in their June report that they have asked An Foras Forbartha to undertake a survey designed to assist the National Prices Commission.
Could we have the reference?
Page 22, paragraph 26. This report of a study made by Mr. Stanley and Mr. Boland of An Foras Forbartha is being printed and will be published within the next few weeks. The Minister for Local Government is anxious to get this report to help him in the preparation of his legislation.
The Minister would scarcely be interested in what I said at the Fine Gael Ard-Fheis, but what I said is very relevant now. I said that, when it came to the stage at which the friends of Fianna Fáil would find the boot pinching, proper control of prices would never be applied by the Government. How true that was. There are two reasonable amendments down to this particular section relating to the inclusion of the cost of land for housing and the control to be applied.
May I interrupt? It would be helpful if the Chair understood that the amendments were being withdrawn.
I most certainly am not withdrawing my amendment.
I take it then that the Deputy is speaking to his amendment?
I am speaking to the amendment and also the section.
The section will be dealt with later.
Then I must speak to my amendment only.
That is so.
Are the amendments being taken together?
My amendment is quite clear.
Is the Deputy moving his amendment?
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 3, subsection 1, line 16, after "commodity", to insert "and land, which is purchased for the erection of a new house or houses thereon, shall be deemed, for the purposes of the Acts, to be a commodity".
Everyone knows that, because of the scarcity of serviced building land, vast fortunes have been made in the provision of sites on serviced land or on land that can be easily serviced. These fortunes have been made by people who had the money to finance such projects and who then overcharged for the sites. In the cost of a house it is true that an extra £500 may not appear to be a very large sum but, when one takes the number of sites packed on to a few acres, there is a tremendous profit earned by speculators operating at the expense of unfortunate young people who need houses. I shall deal later with the Minister's desire to delete this particular section.
I believe that one of the fundamental elements in a house is the land on which it is built. The Minister has deemed a house to be a commodity. Why not the land on which it stands? The argument seems to be that this might mean that less land would come on the market. With proper planning I maintain that there should be no difficulty in controlling building land. We are all aware of the developed lands which local authorities, under the Planning and Development Act, 1963, had to produce before October, 1968; these lands have been produced in every town and village and in the rural areas. There are places where it is possible to provide services, places where communities can be established or existing communities can be expanded. Anyone can buy these development plans and proceed to buy from unsuspecting people what they believe is agricultural land but what eventually turns out to be literally a building goldmine. If this Bill is to mean anything at all one of the commodities that must be included in it is houses and, included in houses, there should be building land, the lands on which the houses stand.
With regard to the argument that acceptance of my amendment and that of Deputy Desmond might lead to a withdrawal of building land from sale, there are other enactments to look after that. There are compulsory powers of acquisition. These can be streamlined, if the Government are so inclined. Site prices have risen to astronomical figures. They must be controlled.
We are pressing very strongly to have inserted in the Bill an amendment which reads:
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £500 (together with, in the case of a continuing offence, a fine not exceeding £50 for every day on which the offence is continued) or, at the discretion of the court, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or both such fine and such imprisonment.
There is urgent need for the inclusion of this subsection. Building land must be brought within the scope of this measure. There has been a sharp upsurge in prices over the past decade. It is not to the credit of the Government that they have failed to include this element of price inflation in this Bill. Three years ago the NIEC recommended that an urgent study should be made in order to assemble all the facts about the increase in site value and to establish precisely the extent of the increases that have occurred. Nothing was done. Retail price levels have gone up by about three-fourths in the past decade. The cost of new building has doubled in the same period. The cost of land has gone up eightfold. The situation at the moment is chaotic. There is an inflationary price spiral. The increases are very, very substantial.
We believe that there is a need for the Department of Industry and Commerce and the National Prices Commission to have a direct statutory function in this essential social need. For that reason we intend pressing the amendment and we support fully the Fine Gael amendment. No doubt in replying to the two amendments the Minister will assure us that the National Prices Commission are keeping a watching brief on the situation.
They are.
It is poor consolation to be told that in view of what has happened during the past five years and there are now further increases in the price of land. It is imperative from an economic point of view and from the point of view of providing houses for those who need them urgently that this provision be made. In relation to land for new houses there has been direct exploitation of the community during the past 12 years. The price of building land has been increased eightfold in that period. A small number of speculators to whom one might refer as the new Irish industrial land rich have made enormous personal gains out of the social requirements of the community. The only way to stop that exploitation is to include the price of new house building land and the houses erected thereon within the scope of the Bill. We have drawn attention to another aspect by broadening further the scope of our amendment as distinct from the amendment put down by Deputy Donegan. We have included in our amendment that land which is scheduled by a planning authority or which is zoned within a planning scheme for residential purposes shall be deemed to be a commodity. This would have the effect of preventing the more shady speculative operations that have gone on by people cashing in on the urgent need for houses. The Minister should talk to the Dublin city and county manager in this respect and he should read the statement made by Mr. Macken in January, 1971, when he said that the greatest problem facing Dublin Corporation was that, when they sought to buy land or to zone land, the agents moved in and attempted to sell it back to the corporation at grossly inflated prices, thereby making a substantial profit for themselves. Mr. Macken regarded that position as being intolerable and he is not a man noted in any way for extreme statements.
He is one of the most valuable of our public servants.
He is one of our most level-headed and esteemed public servants. The Government have failed to come to grips with the problem. The Minister will probably react to the amendments by assuring us that even if he were to consider bringing land for building within the scope of the commission it would be deemed to be unconstitutional that the State should attempt to fix the price of building land. Our reply to that is very simple. We would refer the Minister to other articles of the Constitution which state that the State may, as occasion requires, delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good. If we wish to apply the concept of the common good as we understand it from the Catholic Sociology that we learned in our younger days, here is the obvious way of doing so. The overriding interest of the common good demands that this commodity should be brought within the ambit of the Bill.
I do not accept any legalistic argument from the Minister that it is not possible to do this without violating the Constitution. It can be done and I have no doubt that the Supreme Court which is the most progressive Supreme Court that we have for decades would rule that the Minister would have every right to do this. Also, bringing in this commodity the Minister would be acclaimed by every couple in the country who are in need of housing and who, at the moment, would have to pay up to £1,800 for a site on which to build a house although that same land was probably purchased ten years ago for about £300. The owners of such land can obtain very easily a tax free capital gain and it is usual to build eight houses to the acre.
We implore the Minister to take his courage in his hands in relation to this amendment and to assure the Department of Local Government that for long enough they have failed to tackle the problem. I share Deputy Donegan's concern in relation to the national scandal that exists. In the constituency that I represent I find it both frustrating and humiliating to have to meet young couples each week who are paying up to £8 per week for one or two rooms and tell them that they have no hope of being housed. If they could aspire to purchasing their own homes in that area, the cost would be between £6,000 and £10,000 per house. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
I shall not disappoint Deputy Desmond in that I will not use any of the arguments that he left open for me to use. In relation to the question fixing the price for building land, the Minister for Local Government set up a committee in January, 1971, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Kenny to consider, in the interest of the common good, possible measures for controlling the price of land required for housing and for other forms of development. At this stage it would be both inappropriate and inadvisable for me to introduce any measures relating to the control of building land prices as the committee have not yet made their recommendations. It is my opinion that to endeavour to incorporate in legislation something that is anticipated by way of recommendation is almost always found to be unsatisfactory in that the recommendations made are probably far more all-embracing than I could possibly have proposed for legislation here. So that with a committee so well headed-up, if you like, the Minister for Local Government is expecting some solid proposals in this regard and because of that it would be inopportune just at this time to introduce the type of amendment of this Bill that is recommended here.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 46; Níl, 63.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Joan.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burke, Richard.
- Burton, Philip.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cott, Gerard.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Finn, Martin.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Governey, Desmond.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenny, Henry.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Lawrence.
- Malone, Patrick.
- O'Connell, John F.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Donovan, John.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Reilly, Paddy.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Taylor, Francis.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
Níl.
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barret, Sylvester.
- Boylan, Terence.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Carter, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard C.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Moran, Michael.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Des.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, James.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Loughnane, William A.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Thomas.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Timmins and Cluskey; Níl, Deputies Andrews and Meaney.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.