Last night I said that in replying to the debate I found it most convenient to go down through the contributions made by the various Deputies and to try to deal specifically with them. I had dealt with the contribution made by Deputy Donegan speaking on behalf of the Fine Gael Party. Deputy O'Leary opened his remarks by quoting from paragraph 4, page 7, of the first monthly report of the National Prices Commission, November, 1971, the following sentence: "In the field of price control there are no miracles." The Deputy said he agreed with this. Had he quoted the whole paragraph he would have been saying:
In the field of price control, there are no miracles. Prices must bear some relation to the costs of production. Of the main items of costs, the prices of imported materials and indirect taxes lie wholly beyond our influence as a Commission. The same is true of wages and salaries. When an application for a price increase reaches us, increases in these have already occurred and are generally a main reason for the application. To the extent that we succeed in moderating the rise in prices, we will help to moderate the rate of inflation in future.
This is a straightforward statement of fact made by this commission which I appointed, and which I appointed on the recommendation of the trade unions, of the Confederation of Irish Industry, the Federation of Trade Associations and the Irish Housewives' Association. This commission is headed by Professor Ryan as an independent chairman. That indicates the present position in relation to the effectiveness of price control. Deputy O'Connell also quoted from that paragraph and read into it something that certainly was not intended:
When an application for a price increase reaches us increases in these have already occurred.
From reading that paragraph he was under the impression that at the stage when the application was made to the Prices Commission, the commission conceded that the price increase had already taken place. Of course this is not the case when one reads the sentence in the context of the paragraph. I have to assume that Deputy O'Leary read the paragraph in its entirely and, therefore, despite being mindful of all the constituent factors involved in the submission of a recommendation from the National Prices Commission for the conceding of a price increase to a manufacturer, he went on to say at column 1464, volume 258, of the Official Report for 9th February, 1972:
There is a mystery as to why this Government and the Minister remain utterly inactive in the face of price increases which are eating up wage gains. No effort was made to stem the tide of rising prices and it would take a great deal of effort now to correct the situation and to damp down prices.
It should be remembered that the paragraph in question was subscribed to by the trade union movement itself. Further on, in paragraph 11 of that report, the National Prices Commission say:
Each notice of intention to increase prices is passed to us and we must indicate whether the increase proposed should be accepted in whole or in part, or subjected to detailed examination. Unless the increase proposed is to be subjected to detailed examination, it may be put into effect one month after the date upon which all the particulars required in the notice of intent are received by the Prices Division of the Department. In any case where we recommend an increase less than that proposed, we think it desirable that the firm concerned should have the right to ask that its case be submitted to detailed examination. If a detailed examination is made, the Commission may recommend to the Minister that a report should be published.
This indicates the rounds to which the National Prices Commission go, on the one hand, to investigate the application and, on the other hand, to endeavour to do justice to the manufacturer who is making the application. I found that before the National Prices Commission were created the Prices Section of my Department came in for a great deal of abuse from both sides, from the manufacturer who was making the application for an increase—being critical of the delay and of the detailed way in which the Prices Section of the Department entered into each application and the extremely thorough manner in which they investigated all aspects of it—and from the public for allowing the increase to take place. The same type of criticism has been levelled at this Bill in relation to the question of the Executive taking over functions and interfering too much in the application of control.
The impression all through any debate on price control is that on the one hand, spokesmen here in the House almost invariably, naturally, follow the popular line of insisting that there are not sufficient price controls and that prices are allowed to increase without sufficient justification. The blame for this is placed on the inefficiency of the Establishment, on the inefficiency of the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Minister. On the other hand, when we have speeches made by people who are endeavouring to oppose something in this Bill which proposes to give power to the Department to control service charges and professional fees, the attack is made on those bureaucrats, those faceless members of the Executive who are interfering with the lawful operation of the professional organisations. I have to suggest that this is completely unjustified criticism.
Towards the end of his contribution Deputy O'Leary summarised in a few words the purpose of the exercise from his point of view. He knows that, if one bangs away and criticises the Government and the Minister in regard to inflation, and the apparently ineffective measures to control inflation and, if one hits at it strongly enough and often enough, one can undermine confidence in the Government and in the Minister concerned. Deputy M. O'Leary gave the whole show away when he said, as reported at column 1468, volume 258 of the Official Report for Wednesday, 9th February, 1972:
...the Minister would do well to recall the last general election in Britain when a Conservative Premier won an election that was to become known as the shopping-bag election. That was the approach which proved effective for that Premier when he succeeded in beating a superior government.
It is extraordinary that Deputy M. O'Leary should be now trying to emulate the Tory Party in Britain in endeavouring to bring down a superior government by his attack on this Bill.