I move that this Bill do now pass.
TRADE LOANS (GUARANTEE) BILL, 1924.—FIFTH STAGE.
Before the procedure becomes automatic, I think there is a word or two still to be spoken on this Bill. As a result of the speeches of the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the Second Stage, I came to the conclusion that there was very little basic difference of opinion between the Government and myself, that we were all agreed that the control or regulation of prices is a very difficult matter to carry out successfully. The only difference was that the Government thought that the best way of extricating themselves from a difficult situation was to throw the onus of initiative on to the public. There I disagree with them. I admit that in a normal country in which normal conditions have prevailed for the past four or five years, the course taken by the Government would probably be the best one—the best one from the point of view of abstract political economy, and also possibly the best one in practice. But this is not a normal country, and it is peculiarly difficult in this country to get the public to come together and to co-operate in work of this kind to bring down prices. Partly that is due to our national temperament; partly it is the fruit of our history, which makes it very difficult to get people to trust one another and work together in any sort of undertaking of this kind. In no branch or section of life—I do not think I will be contradicted from the Labour Benches when I say this—is it easy in this country to get people to work together.
While the Minister's scheme would be admirable, applied to what one may call an adult country, I am afraid that here in this country, unless it is taken up either by Traders Unions or by the Farmers' Organisations, or by some body of that kind already in existence, it will not produce any very tangible results. The Government will say to the producer and consumer: "Very well, we gave you your chance. We placed this money at your disposal, and if you did not choose to take it, that is not our fault." But I do not know that that can be taken as a complete fulfilment of the pledge that was given in the Governor-General's speech and that was also given by the President in the Rathmines Town Hall. I am afraid it will not be, but such as it is, it is up to the public to make the most of the scheme, and I certainly hope they will do so. I hope that if any body of consumers do attempt to use this scheme, particularly Section 2, in the spirit in which it is intended, that they will get help and encouragement from the Minister.
I would like to follow the remarks of Deputy Cooper on this matter, that is to try to find out from the Minister whether, after consultation with the Minister for Local Government, he can give us any assurance that our local authorities will be encouraged to apply for assistance in working out Section 2. I imagine if these local authorities are not only allowed to participate in the working of this section but are specifically informed by the Minister, in view of recent experiences, they will be slow even to move in the matter. In respect of the City of Dublin he will be able to say perhaps with more confidence than in respect of other cases whether it is the intention that the local authorities should take action under this section for the purpose of marketing commodities—farm produce, coal and other essential commodities—at a cost very little over the cost price. The matter is of importance because of the fact that Deputy Bryan Cooper called attention to, and if there is anything to be said in favour of local government in the hands of one or two persons, then it should apply more certainly in a matter of this kind than in most other matters. If one or two persons have power to take action regarding the marketing of essential commodities with a view to a general reduction in prices, the local authority that is most likely to do it is the local authority that is run by Commissioners, if they have the will and if they are directed by the Minister for Local Government. I feel confident at any rate that if an early result from this section is to be looked for it will be from the action of local authorities, and so far as it affects the City of Dublin then we should be able to say now when passing the Bill that it is intended that the local authority should put into operation this section and do something to bring down commodity prices in retail sales.
Would the Minister in replying give us the result of any further thoughts he might have had in regard to the Advisory Committees to be established under Section 1 and Section 2 of the Bill? I had recommended in Committee Stage that the two committees should be quite distinct and separate from one another. I mentioned that the committee that might be best qualified to advise under Section 1, might be by their very capacity of experience, debarred from that kind of advice in regard to Section 2 that the Minister would naturally look for. We had not the advantage of the presence of the Minister when the Bill was reported from Committee. If he had been here he would have heard from Deputy Good a very cogent argument against the lending of money to, or the guaranteeing of loans for co-operative societies.
The argument itself was cogent. I disagree with its premises and I differ entirely from its conclusions, but it did reveal the fact that there was a certain type of mind to which the Minister would look, and should look, for advice in regard to Section 1 that did disagree with what everybody had assumed to be the primary purpose of Section 2. Therefore I return to the argument that I brought before the Dáil in Committee, that the Committees on each of these sections should be kept separate, that one Committee should be chosen for Section 1 and another Committee should be chosen for Section 2, and those who have any faith that the provisions of Section 2 will lead to a cheapening of prices to the consumer would, I think, desire to have an assurance from the Minister that the Committees will be kept separate as indicated.
I am very glad that the first result of this Bill on its Fifth Stage has been to make a convert of Deputy Cooper to the extent to which he has this evening confessed. With regard to what Deputy Johnson said, it is my intention, in so far as I am allowed to have any intentions with regard to this Bill at all, that local authorities should make use of its provisions, particularly of Section 2, but whether that is their intention or not I cannot say. We have endeavoured to clear every obstacle from the path. One obstacle, which we discovered late, we did remove by a new clause which we put into Section 7, and in so far as I can use any persuasion with the Minister for Local Government I shall use every endeavour to see that he prevails on local authorities to make use of this Bill, and particularly, as the Deputy has pointed out, in the regions where local authorities are at present substituted by commissioners. The point raised by Deputy Figgis, I am afraid, does not appeal to me. I have to confess that the particular argument which was so cogent that its weight was lost on Deputy Figgis, has not had any weight on me because I did not hear it, that is, regarding loans to co-operative societies, to whom, I may say, I did look to get most benefit from this Bill. On the question of the Committees and the separation of them, I am still in the position I announced on the Third Stage, that I have not been able to get a sufficient number of names from which to form two separate committees, taking into consideration the qualities required in the members who are to sit on these committees, and the fact that the work will be honorary. If I can get a sufficient number of persons interested and with a sufficient civic spirit to lend the ability which they must possess for this particular task to the operations of the Bill, it certainly is my intention to have two separate committees. At present the only difficulty is the number of people interested and willing to act.
Question put, and agreed to.