Níl aon aimhreas i dtaobh na barula atá againne i dtaobh an Bhille seo. Ní maith linn é agus táimid ar an intinn nach ceart é a bheith ós ár gcomhair, beag ná mór.
Ní dóigh liom gur féidir linn a rá ach an oiread go bhfuil muid an-tsásta leis an óráid atá déanta ag an Rúnaí Parlaiminte i dtaobh brí an Bhille. Bhí pointe amháin ann cinnte a thug roinnt sásaimh dúinn, sé sin, go bhfuil ar intinn dul ar aghaidh agus na Billí riachtannacha a thabhairt isteach chomh luath agus is féidir leo a fhágfas an sórt seo Bille i leataoibh ar fad.
The purpose of this Bill has been explained and, notwithstanding the undertakings inherent in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, I should like to say that the Bill gives us no satisfaction. We do not receive it even with mixed feelings. We think the Bill should not be brought in, good, bad or indifferent. The Bill, as Senators are aware, gives very wide powers to the Government. Anybody who has taken the trouble to look at the Principal Act and anybody who has studied Section 2 of that Act will appreciate the extent of these powers. To the student of history, Section 2 will bring home very forcibly the fact that there must have been very grave circumstances in existence at the time the original Act was brought in. It was brought in at the worst period, the most difficult period, of the emergency. Some of the powers in the Bill are of particular importance. At the moment, I think we all agree that the powers which relate to price control are the ones of outstanding interest. I have said that we dislike the Bill. Complaint has been made in this House more than once with regard to the delay in introducing the necessary legislation to make permanent whatever proposals the Government think ought to be made permanent to deal with matters covered by this temporary measure.
It is clear from discussions in the Dáil that considerable progress has been made in the preparation of that legislation and we on this side regret very much that, since the new Government came in, they did not push ahead with the proposed legislation and have it introduced and enacted by now. We here, members of this group, have never felt happy about the introduction of this temporary measure, but whatever unhappiness we experienced about it, I can say that the people who occupy the benches on the other side were particularly dissatisfied and particularly vocal in expressing their dissatisfaction with the continued introduction of this temporary measure. Somebody last evening referred to some Ministry as being deserving of the name of Ministry of Leisure and perhaps in view of the failure of the Department responsible for the introduction of this measure, the term might very aptly be applied to it.
In any case, I take this view, that the circumstances that gave rise to the introduction of this measure no longer exist. Most of the powers that it confers on the Government are no longer required. Some, I agree, must be retained and I have no doubt that, in the sphere of finance, there will be necessity for quite a time yet to entrust special powers to the Government, but outside of these powers, I think the rest might very well go. I am not at all impressed by the declaration of the Parliamentary Secretary that it would require eight or ten Bills to cover the matters involved in this measure. The Bills cannot be very lengthy Bills. We have had some Bills before us arising out of matters covered by this measure and it did not take us very long to dispose of them, but we have the satisfaction of knowing that these matters are now covered by permanent legislation. We know what that legislation is and there is no uncertainty about it.
I have mentioned that the most important matter exercising the attention of the public at present is the matter of prices and price control. The main act gives the Government very wide powers to interfere in matters of price and matters of profits. There was a good deal of complaint with regard to the results achieved by the former Minister for Industry and Commerce. Senators, however, are familiar with the change of Government that took place in 1948 and are familiar with developments in the field of prices during the régime of that Government. The present Minister for Industry and Commerce was then Tánaiste and the Deputy who acted as Minister for Industry and Commerce at the time was very interested in the problem of price control and the necessity for overhauling prices in all fields. Whatever they could do, I take it they did it. Notwithstanding their best, they failed to achieve anything in the way of a satisfactory result. On the contrary, the whole position deteriorated and deteriorated to such an extent that it eventually brought them down.
However, the point I want to come to is that the present Tánaiste and Minister was, I think, responsible for what he at the time considered to be a very revolutionary step designed to enable him to redress the whole problem of prices. I think it was the Tánaiste who was responsible for the setting up of the Prices Advisory Body. That, as Senators who were members of the House at the time will remember, was introduced with a great deal of "whoopee" a great deal of ballyhoo and a great deal of excitement, and there was a feeling engendered all over that here now was very drastic action about to be taken and that no longer would this problem of high prices trouble the ordinary man.
It was the Tánaiste of to-day who selected the personnel of the body that was to examine into this question of prices. I think he selected a very capable body of people to do the work he had in mind and I think that, if I had the selection of the gentlemen to do that work, gentlemen who, in my opinion, would do it well, I do not think I would better the selection he made. I am sure that, when he selected them, he did not select them particularly for their loyalty to or their interest in the Fianna Fáil Party. I say that not with any intention of casting any reflection on them, but I think it would be well to remember that he was responsible for the setting up of that body. I think it well to remember who is responsible for the nominating of the members of that body. It is well to remember the whole circumstances in which the body was set up. There was a change of Government in due course, and I think it is in accordance with the facts that the new Minister did not in any way interfere with the personnel of the Advisory Body. In fact, I think it is not an exaggeration to say that he did not interfere, either, in its working but that, on the contrary, any help or any co-operation he could give to that body was given.
The Tánaiste and Minister for Industry and Commerce and most of his colleagues have had experience of Government. They had, as is clear, considerable experience of the problems and the workings of the price control system — a price control system designed by themselves and, as I pointed out, manned by very eminent gentlemen in whom they had the fullest confidence. In spite of the experience of a number of the present Ministers and in spite of the fact that these people knew full well the Government could do very little in regard to this matter of price control and in regard to this whole matter of price levels, except through a system of subsidies, they set out during the last election deliberately to deceive the public as to the powers of the Government in regard to the control of prices and in regard to the adjustment of price levels. It may be thought that in that I am exaggerating to some extent.
A thing I do not as a rule like doing is digging up ghosts, but this is an occasion, I think, where it is necessary to recall the declarations of present Ministers in regard to these matters. I think it is particularly important that they be recalled now because, as I say, the gentlemen who made these statements were, on the whole, gentlemen who had experience of Government and had experience particularly of this problem of price control. I am not concerned very much at the moment with the declarations of the main element of the Coalition. I say, and I say it with considerable regret, that I have lost respect for that Party. I hope I will continue to enjoy the friendship and goodwill of its individual members, but, as a Party, as far as I am concerned, I think it must be about the poorest thing that has come into Irish life during its history.
For the Labour Party, on the other hand, I have had, and I hope still have, respect. I should have, because I am a worker myself. As many Senators will know I did not happen to be born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I know what it is to have to work very hard. I know what it is to see working-class families trying to make do on very small incomes. Looking back at it now, all I can say is that I marvel at what working-class families have been able to do, so very often on the pittance that was coming into them.
The Labour Party in particular informed its followers and the public in general that it was interested in the cost of living and that it had a way of overhauling the cost of living. I think it is not an exaggeration to say that in toto their declarations amount to undertakings, perhaps solemn undertakings, that they knew how to reduce the cost of living, and that they would reduce the cost of living. To examine their statements in detail would take a very long time. It would also take a very long time to run over the whole field of Labour men and to discuss their views on this matter. I do not intend to do that, but it is essential that we should recall a few of the more specific statements of these spokesmen of the Labour Party.
I am not quite sure as to the position of Deputy Kyne in the other House. I am not in any way going to deal at length with Deputy Kyne or his statements but I think he is a responsible spokesman for the Party. He said the Labour Party stood for reductions in the prices of bread, butter, tea and sugar. I mention this to show that these people had given consideration to this question of subsidies and the cost of living and that they had come to firm conclusions with regard to them.
Another of the Labour spokesmen, at the moment a Minister, is Deputy Keyes. He held forth in the same strain. Deputy Davin is a Parliamentary Secretary and is one who took a prominent part in the campaign for lower prices and for the introduction of subsidies. He had this to say:—
"As far as the Labour Party is concerned the principal item in our programme in this election is the reduction of taxation——"
We shall deal with that on another occasion. He goes on to say:—
"——on all essential commodities to the same level or as nearly as possible to the level at which they stood before the Budget of 1952. I pledge my word of honour...that, if I am re-elected, to undertake with my colleagues to use that power to force whatever new Government is selected to bring down these prices."
Perhaps, in accordance with the tradition of the House, I should give the reference. That is taken from the Midland Tribune of the 15th May, 1954.
Deputy Dunne is a very prominent spokesman for the Labour Party and I have no doubt he exercises considerable influence over working-class families in many places. His declaration is to this effect:—
"Before Labour would participate in a Government with any Party or group of Parties, they would insist that the prices of bread, butter, tea, sugar, cigarettes, tobacco and the workers' pint are reduced immediately."
These, remember, are not the declarations of men new to politics. They are not the declarations of new candidates. They are the declarations of men who have had considerable political experience and who have had the help and advice of other men who have been Ministers of State and who have, I hope, devoted considerable attention to this question of the control of prices —men who must have known what difficulties were inherent in any action they might take. That quotation is from the Meath Chronicle of the 15th May, 1954.
Here is an interesting quotation from the Irish Times of the 5th April, 1954, in which the Labour programme was discussed:—
"In addition to the reduction of food prices, the Labour Party hope to reduce the price of tobacco, cigarettes, beer and spirits."
A question by another person who is now the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Corish, appears in the Wexford People of the 8th May, 1954. He asked:—
"Would they prefer butter at 4/2 a lb. under Fianna Fáil to butter at 2/10 a lb. under the inter-Party Government?"
Perhaps the Minister for Industry and Commerce will not mind if I mention one little remark of his. During the course of a speech at Naas, as reported in the Irish Press on the 15th May, 1954, he said:
"Fianna Fáil Deputies, by voting for the increased prices for tea, bread, butter, sugar and flour, and for the higher taxes on cigarettes, beer and tobacco, have been active conspirators in the attack on the people's standard of living."
Maybe I should conclude, though I feel sorry to leave off quoting these gems. Here is one by Deputy Corish, the present Minister for Social Welfare, as reported in the Irish Independent of the 30th April, 1954:
"The first point in the election programme of the Labour Party was the reduction of food prices and the use of subsidies on essential articles of food to achieve this object. Labour was very definitely committed to this."
Let me say why I mentioned that. There is no ambiguity about the views of the Labour Party with regard to their ability to bring down the cost of living.
I should like to be able to talk about meetings I have attended myself. The last election was probably the only election in a very long time in which I did not take an active part but, if I did not take an active part in it, I was an interested listener at a good many meetings. There is no doubt in my mind as to what was the intention of speakers on the present Government's platforms at that time. Their intention was to convey that they knew how prices had been raised—that they were raised because of the neglect of the previous Government to deal properly with them. They wanted to convey that they knew how to bring down prices and that, if given the opportunity, they would bring them down and bring them down quickly.
Remember, there is no use in coming in here to experienced parliamentarians and telling us that the Budget was already passed and that taxation had already been levelled. The Government could do as they jolly well liked. They could come in and they would be most welcome to come in with proposals to reduce taxation. There would be a certain difficulty for them in coming in and asking that taxation be increased but they would have been most welcome to everybody in either House if they came in with proposals for the reduction of taxation. They were not committed to any Budget—as, on another occasion, we shall be able to show that they were not committed to that Budget that imposed taxation and that eliminated certain subsidies. If they wanted to do it they could have done it any time from last July up to the present time.
I wonder whether this quotation accurately gives the view of the Minister for Industry and Commerce with regard to his powers at the present time so far as the control of prices is concerned. He was recently asked a question in the Dáil by, I think, a member of his own Party, with regard to meat prices—a very difficult matter and a very difficult one for him to deal with. I am concerned, however, with the view that was expressed in part of that reply:—
"My function in the matter is to watch the profit margin and see if there is any undue profit taking place."
His function is "to watch the profit margin." In other words, it would seem as if prices were to be controlled through the control of profits. He continued:—
"I have no power or function in the matter of fixing the price of cattle."
I expect that anything might be substituted for the word "cattle" in that quotation. If that represents the view of the Minister for Industry and Commerce then it raises a very serious issue and it poses a very serious question, that is, whether the Government have sufficient power to deal with this grave matter; whether the Prices Advisory Body, set up by the present Minister for Industry and Commerce— and which is staffed by very capable people—is a competent body and is capable of doing the work which the Minister would wish it to do. If that body is not functioning in the manner in which the Minister desires—if it is not achieving results in the direction in which he wants them achieved—then what is the Minister's next step?
I have dealt with the views of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and of his immediate followers in the Labour Party on the question of the cost of living. The next matter which we will dispose of deals very much with the same question but from a different angle. It is clear that the Labour Party pinned their faith very much on subsidies as a means of bringing down prices. I must be fair to the House and not leave the matter in such a general term. I should just like to give a few examples to show the strength of the conviction that the Labour members felt regarding the power of subsidies to do what they were promising the electorate they would and could do.
Deputy Everett is now a responsible Minister. In a declaration—according to the Enniscorthy Guardian of the 1st May, 1954—he said:—
"The Labour Party would continue to hold the position of deciding what the Government was going to be and they would only decide in favour of the Party prepared to carry out schemes Labour would suggest, such as restoring the food subsidies."
Deputy Davin was equally emphatic. This short quotation from a speech delivered by him and quoted in the Leinster Express of the 17th April, 1954, runs as follows:—
"The Labour Party would use whatever power they got from the people to make certain that the cost of essential commodities would be reduced and that if necessary subsidies would be restored for this purpose."
Deputy Corish had this to say, according to the Irish Times of the 30th April, 1954:—
"The Labour Party did not accept that people should be forced to cut down expenditure on essential foodstuffs and for that reason the very first point in the Party's election programme was the reduction of the price of foodstuffs and the use of subsidies on essential articles of food. The Party was definitely committed to that aim."
There are many other quotations, but I think that few will bring home to the Seanad the strength of feeling that existed among members of the Labour Party and among men who are now Ministers of State with regard to the power of subsidies.
Senators will see the extent, if they were sincere, to which they were determined to use subsidies for that purpose. I just want to know why they have not gone on with their policy of subsidies. It is clear that they have failed to reduce the cost of living. It is clear that they added only one subsidy to the subsidies already in existence and introduced by Fianna Fáil —and that was the subsidy on butter.
As far as I am concerned—and I can assure the House that I speak for those with whom I am associated on this side of the House—we want to bring down the cost of living. We want to bring it down and we want to increase the living standards of our people and particularly of the poorer sections and lower income groups in the community.
The question is, is the subsidy method a good one? If it is a good one, why does the Government not proceed to make more elaborate use of it? There is no point in their saying their hands were tied by the former Budget. They are not, they were not tied by the former Budget. There is no use in their saying that the money is not available to them to do this work. They have financial wizards to advise them, gentlemen who would easily show them how to take rabbits of gold out of a hat just whenever they wanted to do that. They made those promises, they gave those undertakings and I am just asking on behalf of my colleagues why they have not fulfilled their undertakings. It will not be sufficient for them to say they were tied by a former Budget. It will not be sufficient for them to say that the financial system is against them. They have the power to alter these things if they wish to do so. What are they going to do about it?
I am asked the question whether the subsidy system is a good one. That is a matter I would like to discuss at length, but it is clear that it would not be fair to the House to continue to hold it up much longer. I have spoken at greater length than I intended to speak on this matter. All I can say now is that, as far as I am concerned, that is the question to which the simple answer "yes" or "no" cannot be given. In times of emergency or of acute economic distress, subsidies may be desirable. When they were introduced by the Fianna Fáil Government during the war they were introduced in those very circumstances that were suitable for the introduction of subsidies. Even though the conditions are hard at present, however, I think the present time is not a suitable time for subsidies. The circumstances that gave rise to the introduction of the subsidy system no longer exist. My main objection to it is that it conceals—and conceals only too effectively, only too efficiently—the real economic position of this State. It conceals the real economic position from the people. That is the great objection I find to subsidies, particularly at the present time. If costs of production are high, if scarcities exist in a great many items, if economic frictions have developed and are extending, then it is far better that the people should know of their existence.
For my part, I would very much prefer that, in general, price difficulties would be met or resolved by wage adjustments following on adequate inquiry and ultimately by conference between the workers and managements. For this purpose, I cannot recommend anything better to the House than the approach to these problems through the channels or machinery of the Labour Court. Perhaps the Labour Court is slow—it must have an enormous amount of work to do—but it ought to be possible to help the Labour Court in its work. I cannot escape this feeling, that the court is not getting the support to which it is entitled. I cannot help feeling that the court is not getting the respect it ought to get. For the general body of workers, where prices are a difficulty, I cannot see any better way of resolving that difficulty than through the channels of the Labour Court. In doing that, the real difficulties confronting them, the real difficulties confronting industries and confronting the State, are brought before them. They are brought home to them, they are educated to them and in consequence of that education I think that they themselves would be able to take satisfactory action to enable a proper adjustment of prices to be made.
I have dealt with three things. I have taken the main point, this question of the cost of living. I have shown that the Labour Party in particular—I have given the reason why I selected the Labour Party for comment—entered into a commitment with the public that it would reduce the cost of living, that, in fact, it knew how to reduce the cost of living. I have shown that the Labour Party, obviously after giving considerable attention to the matter and after considerable investigation, had pinned their faith on the capacity of the subsidy system to overhaul prices and overhaul them in a satisfactory manner. I have shown—I have not attempted to demonstrate it because it is a fact that is observed by all and sundry—that prices have not come down, that the cost of living has not come down; and secondly, that the Labour Party itself has failed to introduce that system of subsidy which they declared they would introduce and which they declared would be capable of solving the difficulties of workers due to high prices.
Let me conclude by asking this question. What is likely to affect prices? If the Minister has not the power to do it, will he indicate the powers which he thinks he could take to overhaul prices and reduce costs and leave capital intact? If he thinks that the reorganisation of the Prices Authority is advisable and would achieve that result, will he indicate to us the lines on which he thinks he ought to proceed in the matter of changing that body, whether by enlarging it or overhauling it?
For my own part, I am satisfied that the Government itself can do very little with regard to this question of prices. It will, of course, be said that if the Government takes control of industry, if it socialises industry, it will be able to do what it or what the Labour people think they can do, but is there any intention to socialise industry, and in that way bring about a reduction in prices, a reduction in which we are all very interested and from which we would all benefit? My own belief, as I say, is that the Government can do very little about it. But can it be done? It is clear, anyway, that the only satisfactory way of dealing with the matter, in the interests of the workers, in the interests of the poor and in the interests of the nation as a whole is, and I mention it with a certain amount of diffidence, by getting more efficient production and higher production levels.
How is that to be done? It is not a matter that we can discuss on this Bill. I would just barely indicate what I think are the means by which this most desirable end might be achieved. The first essential is that the whole technique of management be improved. That is a tremendous task, and some efforts are being devoted to it at the present time. But when one considers the somewhat disorganised system of industry that we have, one is not so sure that quick results will be achieved in that field. However, we have got to face the facts. I think that nobody will more readily admit the need for attention to that particular aspect of the national economy than management itself in this country. I think that they themselves feel that something more, much more, will have to be done in the future than has been done so far.
There is then the whole question of the attitude of operatives to their work —to engender the feeling in them that it is in their own best interests, as well as in the interests of the nation as a whole, that output be stepped up, that waste be eliminated, whether that is waste of raw materials, waste in the matter of running machinery and plant, or waste in the matter of time. That a man should waste 30 minutes in the day does not seem to be very significant, but if a man wastes half an hour every day for a week it becomes noticeable, and if that goes on for a year it becomes remarkable. If we all waste, perhaps not very deliberately and not intentionally, even ten minutes in the day, and do that every day for a year, is it not quite easy to appreciate how that adds to the cost of production? How to get over to men and women in all branches of trade, industry and commerce the need for greater devotion to work, the need to do their work better, to secure higher outputs, to eliminate waste of all kinds, and to get that over rapidly, is something that it will be very difficult to do.
There is then the over-all necessity for better capital equipment. Much of that which we have is obsolete. Much that we have is quite effective as far as machinery and plant goes, but because of inventions and of developments in other countries it has become obsolete and so very many of our industries are unable, because of the lack of resources, to replace the capital equipment they have at the present time.
I would conclude by suggesting that higher rewards for capital itself are essential if we are to secure this higher output with a consequent reduction in costs. I will mention something that I would like to argue, but perhaps to mention it will be enough, and it is that we ought to get out of our heads as quickly as possible that high profits are inconsistent with good wages and with low prices. Experience everywhere, even in this country of ours, has demonstrated that low prices and high wages and high profits are thoroughly consistent. These, I think, are the only ways in which we can do what I am sure the Minister desires to do, and that is to overhaul this whole question of the cost of living, thereby raising generally the standard of living for the people.
I am afraid that I have held the House rather long and perhaps I have wearied it to some extent, but I think that these are occasions when things need to be said. Some of them, in the telling of them may have been unpleasant; they may have been hard but it is our duty to stare truth straight between the two eyes. Unless we do that, we will not get anywhere. Let us be straight with ourselves and straight with the public. If we are, then we shall have nothing to fear.