Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Oct 1937

Vol. 69 No. 2

Public Business. - Control of Prices (No. 2) Bill, 1937—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

It may, perhaps, enable Deputies to understand more easily the scope and purpose of this measure if I preface my remarks on it by giving a brief history of prices investigation in this State. From the very beginning of the State there have been, from time to time, in fact, almost continuously, complaints of unduly high prices being charged for commodities of common consumption. There have been allegations of profiteering by traders and others and demands for investigation and control. I think it is necessary to emphasise that point, in order that Deputies may approach the consideration of this measure in the proper atmosphere. Legislation to provide for the control of prices is not made necessary by any purely temporary circumstance, or any particular policy in operation at any one time, and it would be a mistake for the House, and probably detrimental to the production of the best type of legislation, if Deputies were to consider this Bill as something occasioned by existing circumstances, or to deal with conditions which may arise in the near future. Complaints about undue prices have been in existence at all times, and the demand for legislation to establish machinery to control prices has existed from the first year in which this State came into existence. As far back as October, 1922, a Commission on Prices was set up by resolution of the Dáil. To quote the terms of that resolution the commission was "to inquire into and report on prices costs or profits at all or any of the stages in the production distribution or sale of the commodities," specified in the official report on the Cost of Living and on alcoholic and other beverages. In proposing the motion to establish that commission the Minister for Industry and Commerce of that day, Mr. Joseph McGrath, referred to the widespread reports which were in circulation concerning profiteering. To quote his words as they appear in volume I, column 833, of the Dáil Debates, he said: "Profiteering, to my mind, is going on to a very large extent."

A commission was established by the Dáil as a result of that motion, but it had no statutory powers to collect information in cases in which it was not voluntarily given, and, in consequence, the commission did very little useful work, although an elaborate arrangement of local committees was established in all important centres in the country. The report of the commission, which is available to Deputies in the Library of the Dáil, is of interest to-day only in so far as it bears on observations that have since been repeated by every tribunal or body set up to investigate prices: "We regret to have to report that the consuming public, as distinct from the manufacturers and traders, have shown little interest in the activities of the commission, and have rendered very little help, notwithstanding repeated invitations." They pointed out that the attitude of the public was all the more regrettable because its investigations had been undertaken because of repeated public complaints as to prices. The observations of the committee which I have quoted, and similar observations contained in the reports of subsequent tribunals of inquiry into prices, should be borne in mind by Deputies when considering the details of this measure, because our experience has made it clear that it is idle and futile to rely on active public co-operation to ensure the effectiveness of any system of prices control. In 1923, following the publication of the report of the commission to which I have referred, the Government then in office determined to introduce legislation for the permanent control of prices. It even got so far in the matter as to be able to announce on April 2nd, 1924, that a Bill for that purpose would be introduced in about a fortnight from that date. The Bill never appeared however, but sometime later, as reported in volume 7, column 182 of the Dáil Debates, Deputy Cosgrave, who was then President, in explaining the non-appearance of the measure in relation to the Minister for Industry and Commerce said:—

"That is not to say that he is not impressed by the gravity of the case and the necessity for the Bill and for putting up a measure which will meet the case."

No measure of any kind was, however, enacted, although public complaints concerning prices continued, and the subject-matter of these complaints was frequently debated in the House. As a result of complaints and pressure applied in the Dáil, Deputy Cosgrave's Government decided to act again by way of the establishment of a commission of inquiry, and in February, 1926, the Tribunal on Prices was set up "to inquire into the retail price of articles of general consumption as a definite matter of urgent public importance," to quote the terms of the Dáil resolution. That tribunal reported in October, 1927. Its report revealed that unduly high prices were being charged for many articles of food in different parts of the country. On page two of their report the Prices Tribunal state: "The outstanding impression left on our minds as a result of this inquiry is the need for continuous investigation and supervision." In the report they elaborated proposals for the establishment of a permanent prices board. No action was taken upon their report by the Government then in office, although they were repeatedly pressed to do so in the Dáil, and although complaints about prices continued to exist. It was not until the change of Government in 1932 that it fell to my lot to prepare and to introduce here the present Control of Prices Act. When introducing that Act I explained that the Government accepted the view that permanent machinery for the investigation of prices was required, that citizens were entitled to have a means whereby their legitimate complaints might be investigated and, if possible, remedied; and that it was, in any event, an essential measure, particularly in this country, at a time when industrial development was being promoted by restrictions of imports leading to a reduction of competition. I pointed out, however, the essential difference between the investigation and the publication of reports on prices and the actual enforcement of prices control.

I expressed the hope, which has not, in the event, been fully realised, that the Prices Commission would be able to achieve its purpose without actual resort to price fixation, although power to fix maximum prices was taken, to be used in the last resort when persuasion and publicity had failed. That Bill received a very mixed reception from the Dáil but it was not opposed. In the Seanad, however, many amendments were inserted which lessened its effectiveness in many respects, particularly in regard to the provisions dealing with the investigation of individual complaints by members of the public. It became law, however, and since then the Prices Commission has operated. I repeat that I have given that brief history of price-control legislation for the purpose of making clear that the need for it has existed and has been recognised to exist at all times by members of the public and by those charged with the responsibility of ensuring that public grievances in that regard were remedied. I do not know the considerations which persuaded the previous Government to drop their declared intention to introduce such a permanent measure. Possibly, the difficulty of framing the measure— a difficulty of which I am very well aware—had something to do with it. Most Deputies will, however, recognise that it is much better to establish some permanent body, charged with statutory functions and given the necessary powers to investigate prices and to require information on prices to be supplied to them, than that we should have periodic investigations by ad hoc committees or tribunals set up for the purpose of publishing reports only and without power to ensure that effective action is taken.

The Prices Commission which has operated since 1932 has completed investigations into the prices charged for a number of commodities. It may, perhaps, be of interest to Deputies to give the list of commodities the prices of which have been investigated by the commission and to make some reference to the circumstances under which the investigations were considered necessary.

The first investigation related to wheaten flour. The next investigation related to wheaten meal and there were, then, investigations into the prices of bread, mineral hydrocarbon heavy oil, bodies used for omnibuses and goods vehicles, fresh fish and filleted fish—these two investigations were taken together—all materials and appliances used in the building of houses, furniture, mattresses and bolsters. A further investigation into the price of batch bread was undertaken last year and the commission is at present engaged in investigating the price of bacon. As Deputies are aware, the existing law gives the Prices Commission power to investigate the price charged for a scheduled commodity when requested to do so by the Minister for Industry and Commerce or by any other interested person. Two of the investigations to which I have referred—fresh fish and filleted fish—were undertaken at the request of a local authority in Dublin. All the other investigations were undertaken by the commission at my request. The scheduled commodities are set out in the Act and are—(1) any commodity used as food or drink by a man other than drugs or water; (2) any commodity used as clothing, material for clothing or fuel. Power was given to the Executive Council to add to the schedule any commodity of common use. That power was exercised to give the commission power to undertake an investigation into the price of furniture.

Under the existing Act, the commission may endeavour to check profiteering, if they are satisfied that profiteering is taking place, by giving the public notice of prices which it considers reasonable and requiring the prices to be reduced to those figures within a specified time. If that procedure fails, the commission can report the failure to the Minister for Industry and Commerce who can—in theory at least—fix a maximum retail or wholesale price. On the one occasion on which the Prices Commission tried to secure a reduction in existing prices by means of the procedure under the Act—that is, in the case of bread— the persons concerned refused to comply with the request. When the Prices Commission published their notice stating what they considered was a reasonable price and requesting the persons concerned to reduce their price to that figure, there was noncompliance with that request and a report was made to me. In consequence of that report, I decided to exercise the powers given under the Act for the purpose of fixing a maximum price. I found however, that the framing of the Act was defective in many respects. As Deputies will remember, before that power could be secured, fresh legislation dealing with bread only had to be enacted. The maximum price for bread which is now operating is fixed under that special Act dealing with bread prices and not under the Act of 1932.

The Act of 1932 also provided that complaints from individuals should be made to the authority set up by the Act—the Controller of Prices—who was given power to arrange for the investigation of such complaints by means of inspectors and, if he found that they were substantiated, either to refer the matter to the Prices Commission so that a full price investigation should be undertaken or, after compliance with the provisions of the Act, which are very elaborate and formal, proceed to fix a legal price by making a price certificate. We have found, in practice, that the existing Act is defective in many ways. Perhaps it will explain the reason for this measure and the nature of its various provisions if I indicate the main difficulties which arose in the operation of the 1932 Act. I have mentioned some of them already but the case of bread is the outstanding one. The commission found, when requested to investigate the price charged for that commodity, that no useful work could be done by them if they confined their activities to the narrow field covered by the requisition sent to them. An investigation into the price of bread is of little value unless, at the same time, an examination can be made of the price of flour and the various ingredients of bread. I have mentioned bread as an example but Deputies will understand that the same thing is true of practically any other commodity.

In the Bill, therefore, we are giving the commission power when they receive a requisition, or themselves decide, and give notice of their intention, to investigate the price of a particular commodity, to extend the scope of their inquiry at any time they think it necessary to do so in order to enable them to arrive at useful results.

The Prices Commission occasionally found it necessary, particularly in connection with the investigation of the prices of housing materials, to submit an interim report and to make recommendations therein with a view to immediate action being taken in relation to the prices of some commodities.

Professor O'Sullivan

With regard to that case of bread which the Minister has mentioned, would the Minister make it clear? The price of bread was sent to the commission for investigation, but the price of flour was not.

Mr. Lemass

It was.

Professor O'Sullivan

It was not included in that particular case.

Mr. Lemass

Not in the second instance, but in the first instance the commission got two references at the same time.

Professor O'Sullivan

What is to prevent their carrying on that double investigation pari passu into the price of bread and the price of flour? How were their activities hampered in any way by the lack of legal power? I merely want the Minister to make that clear. I gather that he says that is so.

Mr. Lemass

I was merely giving bread as an illustration. I was not attempting to illustrate what actually happened. The principal difficulty, in fact, in relation to the report the commission sent, as a result of their investigation of the price of bread, arose not out of their inability to extend the scope of their investigation, but out of their difficulty in securing an exact definition of the commodity, the price of which they were investigating; and, as a result, the second investigation which was undertaken only last year was confined to a particular kind of bread, namely, batch bread, and the legislation which was enacted deals with batch bread only. The first reference to the commission, however, was a reference to investigate the price of bread and their report had necessarily to deal with the whole question of bread prices, whereas, of course, the only immediate necessity for action arose in relation to the common type of bread used in every household, namely, batch bread, and in fact no powers to control the prices of fancy breads of any kind have been taken. In relation to Deputy O'Sullivan's point, I should mention that when the commission commenced operations, it was in fact asked to investigate the prices of flour and bread at the same time.

Furthermore, the commission frequently found it desirable, following prices investigation, to recommend different prices for different varieties of a scheduled commodity and different prices for varying conditions of sale, but we were advised that the commission had no power under the existing Act to make such a recommendation, or the Minister to act upon such a recommendation, if it were made. A more particular difficulty, and one which has a very direct relation to the bread investigation to which I have referred, was that the maximum price recommended by the Prices Commission in relation to a particular commodity might, on occasion, be rendered valueless by rapid market fluctuations in the prices of the constituents of the commodity. The commission felt that in such cases it was essential that they should have power to recommend, not an absolute maximum price, but a sliding scale price which would have a direct relation to the prevailing prices of some other commodity. In the case of bread, the maximum price fixed under this Bill is related to the prevailing price of flour. The price of flour is itself not controlled, but machinery is established to ascertain from time to time the prevailing market price of flour and, on the basis of that ascertained price, the maximum price for bread is fixed. The 1932 Act, however, did not give that power, namely, the power of relating the fixed price to the price of some other commodity. Under that Act, only one maximum price can be fixed under one Order, and if conditions change as a result of increased cost of constituent commodities, or for some other reason, a new investigation, a new report and a new order would be required.

There were, however, certain investigations undertaken by the commission which convinced them that cases would arise in which not even a sliding scale maximum price would be the most effective method of preventing undue prices being charged, and, consequently, the Bill now before the House provides for controlling profits by the fixation of a definite margin and regulating prices, not in relation to the actual charges made to the public, but by reference to the profits earned by the seller.

Professor O'Sullivan

The nett profits?

Mr. Lemass

We are leaving it as wide as possible and allowing the commission to decide the best precedure to be adopted in any particular case. I think the commission will find that in operation they will have difficulty in applying that particular method of control, except to a very limited range of commodities. As Deputies will have noticed, however, we are giving the commission certain powers wider than that in relation to commodities, the importation of which is subject to customs duty, or restrictions by quota orders or otherwise. We are giving the commission power to recommend, if they consider that a necessary and desirable reduction of price cannot otherwise be secured, a reduction of the prevailing customs duty or a modification of the restrictions on import.

I am sure Deputies will agree that there may be cases in which the only effective method of preventing undue prices being charged for such commodities will be along those lines, and it is the intention to act in that manner, if and when the commission reports that undue prices are being charged or that the only effective method of preventing it is by modifications of import restrictions.

We are also giving the commission power to give public notice of its intention to keep the prices of particular commodities under continuous investigation, and, in such circumstances, to obtain from persons engaged in the manufacture or sale of such commodities such information as the commission may think necessary in order to have a complete picture of the situation, and to report to the Minister as to the action which should be taken to deal with it. The amendments inserted in the Seanad to the part of the Bill dealing with the powers of the Controller in relation to the investigation of individual complaints, practically destroyed that part of the Bill. They made the procedure for dealing with those complaints so elaborate and complicated that I do not blame any member of the public for not proceeding with his or her complaint when the procedure was brought to their notice. Those amendments were inserted by the Seanad very largely on the plea that they were necessary to protect the interests of legitimate traders. I resisted them because I thought they were unwise, but the Seanad was in a position to have its way in the matter, and I am now proposing to delete most of them. I think that Deputies who will read that part of the Bill will not consider that the powers that we are proposing to take are in any way too drastic.

The alterations in the Bill are designed to make the whole procedure for the investigation of individual complaints less formal than it was, so that a verbal complaint can be investigated, or a complaint made otherwise than on the appropriate form, can receive the attention of the Controller, and the Controller can act forthwith in order to secure the information which will enable him to decide the course of action he should take. He has alternative courses of action. He can first bring the whole matter to the notice of the commission so that a general investigation into the price of the commodity the subject of the complaint may be made; or he can act in relation to an individual trader or manufacturer who is guilty of an overcharge, secure the repayment of the overcharge, and in certain circumstances punishment for the person responsible for it by means of publication of the circumstances of the case. We are, of course, also giving the commission power to initiate investigations on their own behalf without necessarily waiting for a reference from the Minister for Industry and Commerce or a request from a member of the public.

The Prices Commission, as Deputies are aware, was set up as a voluntary body, the members of which gave their services voluntarily, and the work of the commission called for a considerable sacrifice of time on their part. After the experience of a year or so it was found necessary to provide that the chairman of the body would receive some remuneration on a part-time basis, but I think the time has come when a change must be made in the nature of the body itself. I do not think it is fair for the State to rely on the voluntary assistance of individuals for conducting investigations of this kind, however large and competent a staff of public servants may be put at their disposal. We are proposing, therefore, in the Bill to reduce the size of the commission. The original commission under the 1932 Act consisted of not less than five persons. We are proposing that the new commission may be limited to three persons, and it is the intention that these persons will be remunerated, but whether on a whole-time or a part-time basis I cannot say yet. The intention is that they will be remunerated for the services they render.

Professor O'Sullivan

Are the actual provisions in the proposed Bill different from those in the Act as it stands at present?

Mr. Lemass

The intention in the 1932 Act was to set up a representative body, and, consequently, there were various provisions inserted to provide that one of the persons appointed would be representative of agricultural interests, and I think there was a provision that two members should be women and certain other provisions of that kind. We are now getting away from the idea of a representative body—that is, a body which would reflect in itself various interests in the community, and are setting up instead an investigating body of persons who will be selected because of their competency for that particular type of work, and who will be directly charged with the responsibility not merely of carrying out individual investigations as they arise, but in doing the continuous work which we now anticipate will be done by this commission: this keeping of prices under review and reporting thereon periodically or as occasion may arise to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. A number of other changes are proposed in the measure with which I need not deal now. Reference can be made to them during the Committee Stage discussion.

The Bill is being submitted to the Dáil on the assumption that the need for price control legislation is recognised, and that there is a general desire that whatever machinery we may set up for that purpose will be fully effective. It is only during the past five years that we in this country have had actual experience, in other than war-time circumstances, of price-control machinery in practice. Deputies who have studied this matter will have noticed that in other countries, although the demand for such legislation has been fairly consistent, legislation has not been enacted except in few cases. I cannot say, as a result of my own inquiries, whether the legislation in those countries which have thought fit to enact it has been fully effective or not, but most Governments have apparently been deterred from attempting permanent price control at all by the inherent difficulties of the problem: the difficulty of providing machinery which would be able to act effectively and speedily to prevent any undue rise in prices. In the neighbouring country, although Royal Commissions have from time to time examined the matter and made recommendations, no such legislation has been attempted.

There is, therefore, not available for us the same fund of experience in other countries which we can sometimes call upon in relation to other classes of legislation. We have got to follow the road indicated by our own judgment in this matter. We made a start in 1932, and I have no apology whatever to offer if the Prices Commission which was established in consequence of the 1932 legislation has not been considered fully effective. It was as effective as it could have been in all the circumstances. It was, as I have stated, always recognised that effective machinery would be difficult to devise, and the course that we took was, I think, the only practical course open to us: that is to say, we set up the best machinery we could devise, allowed it to operate and learned by experience what changes were necessary to make it really sound. This Bill, which I am now proposing to the Dáil, may or may not be the last attempt at price control legislation in this generation, but it represents the sum total of our experience to date, and I believe that it will justify itself by results. I therefore recommend the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Professor O'Sullivan

The Minister finished his speech by saying that he had no apology to offer for introducing this measure. When a man makes a statement of that kind it is generally taken as an admission that he has done something which it is very hard to defend. It is the common phrase used by those who make mistakes. In connection with this Bill, there are a few things in relation to it on which I would like to congratulate the Minister. The first is the form in which he has introduced it. It is really an amending Bill. The greater portion of the older Bill has been reproduced.

Mr. Lemass

We are repealing the older measure.

Professor O'Sullivan

To the great advantage of Deputies and the House, the Minister has avoided, in this measure, the rather difficult procedure of legislation by reference. There is another matter on which I again congratulate him. Last June, when this Bill was printed, the public—and, of course, the Minister is not responsible —were rather inclined to be misled into the idea that an entirely new Bill was being introduced and that some entirely new step was being taken that would deal effectively with the question of prices. It was fortunate for the Minister—I do not say that he would do such a thing deliberately— that that impression was created during the election campaign, when one of the main issues before the electors was the question of prices and the intolerable way in which the people were being fleeced. It was useful that such an accident should occur, such a coincidence in time, as the production of an apparently new Bill—which was really an old Bill, with a few amendments that I will deal with subsequently. And we had, in an organ that, I think, the Minister would not say would misrepresent him, or that, anyhow, would not misrepresent the Government, such headings as "New Bill to control Prices,""Commission to Go.""Body with Wider Powers to be Set Up"—all in flaring headlines. Then the public would read through these provisions, and the public, which is generally short-minded, not being interested in technical details, would be struck with the enormous and drastic powers that are now being assumed by the Minister, quite oblivious of the fact that most of the enormous and drastic powers set out are powers that the Minister has had for the last five years. That was a good impression—I mean, it was a good accident for the Minister that that impression should be created for the Minister at that time.

What you have is the old Bill with some additional powers added. Now, the Minister, for instance, dealt with the fact that he was scrapping the unpaid commissioners: that he recognised that representative people who knew different aspects of the subject were not the people that would deal with this thing. What he wanted was the official, the expert—of course, he cannot be an expert in everything— but the trained official mind or at least a mind that could be trained by the official mind—remarkably like the old Tariff Commission. It is a great conversion to see the Minister harking back, not merely in this respect, but in other respects as well, to the procedure of the Tariff Commission and to the necessity of investigations such as the Tariff Commission could initiate and could carry through. He was satisfied five years ago that he had the machinery to deal with profiteering. It took him five years to find out that he had not. He started off, in his own words, by saying: "I will give you a brief history." I wonder did the House notice that the history abruptly stopped at 1932 and that he finished the very instructive five years between 1932 and 1937 with the phrase: "The commission was set up and operated." Then he began to deal with the provisions of the Bill. Now, what the Minister might have attempted to justify, in the light of his experience —because he admits that he has not other countries on whose experience he can fall back—was the keeping on of a commission that has done so very little. He does not blame them for having done so very little, and I am not blaming them, but it would have been better if he had attempted to justify the keeping on of a commission that has done so very little instead of proceeding to an elaboration of the existing system.

The Minister will remember that certain questions were put before him, when this Bill was discussed five years ago, on the matter of profiteering. The Minister was asked, did profiteering exist and on what scale; how far did, in fact, traders merit the charge that was made against them that they were charging undue prices for commodities that they sold and that manufacturers were guilty of similar conduct. The answer of the Minister was that he did not know, but here at least he was setting up machinery that would tell him and, apparently, would tell the public. Now, he has had that machinery for five years. Has the House, has the public, has the Minister got much information from that elaborate machinery, of the efficiency of which he was so confident five years ago? He, then, could not give the information—in fact, he said that it was one of the main functions of this commission to provide that information, and I suggest that the public is as much without that information to-day as it was then. There is this difference, however—that there is a great deal more vigorous and louder outcry to-day about the prices of commodities than there was in 1932.

The Minister may remember that the Act of 1932, when it was a Bill, was described by one responsible Deputy as a humbug. Excuse me— there were two Deputies. It was described by another Deputy as a fraud.

Mr. Lemass

The same adjective does not apply to both.

Professor O'Sullivan

It was so described. Is the Minister responsible or irresponsible enough to say that these epithets were not justified? What is the whole history of the commission, and what is the whole history of the Minister's administration of it, except a justification of that particular description? There were two possible lines of development at that time: either an intolerable interference with the ordinary trading life of the community, or else to let the Bill be there as window-dressing, but merely as that. It is rather cynical, the whole setting up of that Bill and its whole operation, so far as the consuming public were concerned. I should like to know what advantage the public has got out of five years of this legislation. The most important question that was discussed was the question of flour, and we see the mess into which that has got. The other matter in connection with which they got a certain amount of fame for themselves was in connection with a pair of boots or a pair of shoes that they found had been overcharged, I think, by 5/-. That is the work of the commission to a large extent, so far as the public is concerned. I will admit that they have sent in five annual reports and that they have investigated certain things, but what have they done as regards the control of prices? I am not blaming the members of the commission. I think the Minister himself almost recognised—almost confessed, in the concluding portion of his speech, by way of an apology, if not for himself, certainly for the commission— that they were set an impossible task. Therefore, I am certainly not criticising these citizens of this State, men and women who gave their services voluntarily to this State in this rather futile work.

As I am dealing with the members of the commission, I see they are being cut down to three. There was a provision in the original Act that of the five members two would be women. That now disappears. I wonder whether the Minister is so satisfied with the statement as regards the status of women made in Geneva that he thinks it necessary to do nothing here and leaves it out. There are certain things left out and that is one of them. It is rather interesting when you compare the two Bills. A woman might be able to bring as regards prices a point of view that a man might not. It is rather a pity, even from what I might call the gesture point of view—the Minister is very keen on making gestures—that he should cut out that particular provision.

The Minister enumerated the things done. What does the public know about them, barring the pair of shoes and the question of bread and flour? There again we have an extraordinary situation. Perhaps the Minister will indicate if I would be right if I said that some of the changes in this Bill are meant to make general much the same provisions as those sections of the Bread Act to which he referred. I think that would be a correct description. Look at what happens. You have a commission investigating the price of bread and you have a Bread Act. In the month of June, or perhaps it was May—I cannot say for the moment which, but I know it was during the election campaign— there was again the happy situation that the Minister thought he was justified in cutting down the maximum price of bread.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister had nothing to do with it. The price of bread relates to the price of flour.

Professor O'Sullivan

At the same time, there was a commission investigating——

Mr. Lemass

At the same time?

Professor O'Sullivan

——and able to produce a report. It was presented within, I suppose, six weeks, in the month of July. It was stated: "The Minister for Industry and Commerce has received a report dated 28th July, 1937." That commission found that the price of bread must go up because of the world price of wheat. Were the Minister and his advisers in the dark as regards the investigations of the commission that they left that fact out of account? It was again a rather lucky thing for the Minister that in the midst of the election campaign he could say: "Down goes the price of bread." Many of us risked the prophesy that when the election was over it would go up, and it did. Of course, that is one of those happy accidents the Minister always brings about.

Mr. Lemass

It is an obvious misrepresentation.

Professor O'Sullivan

I think the juggling with bread was a pretty effective misrepresentation. It struck me as rather amusing that at one time the Minister had in the words "the commission will report as soon as may be." That is one of the things, at all events, which he learned from experience, because in the new Bill he leaves out "as soon as may be." What can we expect from the new commission? We see the result of the excellent machinery the Minister set up five years ago. Every member of the House and every member of the public can make up his mind as to what the public got out of that in the way of benefit. As if they were not marching slow enough, he is not going to put on them the work of the Tariff Commission. I congratulate the Minister on his conversion to the point of view that one of the things that ought to be investigated is precisely the effect of these tariffs on the price of commodities, but I do not think it will accelerate the work of the commission. There is a body there capable of doing that— experts who could have been set to the doing of it for the last five years. Furthermore, they are to report to the Minister. What is the good of the commission reporting to the Minister, who holds that one effect of the tariffs is that everything is cheaper and better as a result of these tariffs?

Again I ask the question I put about information. The Minister rode off in 1932 with the fact that he had no information, because he had not the machinery to get it. He has had that machinery for five years now. When bringing in this as an entirely new Bill we would expect that he would give the information to the House as to the extent to which individuals in this State, be they manufacturers or traders, are actually profiteering. I am rather doubtful about anything good coming out of these increased powers. I am convinced that a great deal of the increased cost of living or heavy cost of living that the public has to bear is largely due to the policy of the Government. There used to be complaints—and I do not think anybody could be more eloquent or fluent than the Minister in announcing these complaints—about the slowness of the old Tariff Commission. Then, as I said, this commission was not going slow enough. He determines to add to it duties, a large portion of which should be the duties of the Tariff Commission.

I put a couple of questions to the Minister in order to clarify my mind dealing with certain portions of this Bill. I cannot say that the answers met the questions I raised. I would ask the Minister, between this and the next stage, to see could he give definite answers as to what exactly were the powers that were lacking and that he now gets, apart from certain tariffed goods and matters of that kind. He gives power to this commission to investigate whether a desirable reduction in prices should not be brought about by a modification of the tariffs. I think that is a correct description of what the Minister said—in fact, almost word for word. Desirable from what point of view? What factors are to be taken into account—the cost of production here or the capacity of the consumer to pay? Which of these things must the commission take into account in considering whether reduction is desirable by a modification of tariffs?

This Bill, of course, like many another Bill from the Minister, like the Act that it is repealing, in its main essentials is an effort at face-saving; an effort to put on somebody else the responsibility that is actually on the shoulders of the Government. The Minister tries to get out of a great deal of the trouble by putting it on the defunct Seanad. I do not think anybody will think that that is an effective method of doing it. It was possible to pay the members up to the present. I suggest that it is clear on the face of the Bill that in that respect this Bill gives the Minister no more power than the existing Act. He saves two salaries, of course, but considering the large issues at stake, I am rather surprised that that has made the Fianna Fáil Party hesitate for a number of years before replacing the volunteer members of the commission by paid civil servants.

These are the principal points that I had meant to bring to the attention of the House. I do not think, so far as relief of the public is concerned, that this Bill will be very much more effective than the existing Bill. Its operation may be a little bit slower. I doubt if the Minister's optimistic prophecy will be a bit more fulfilled in the present case than in the last case. The Bill, practically, except for a few changes which are desirable, is really a repetition of the existing Act in many respects.

Mr. Norton

Beyond the fact that this Bill is probably a little more lengthy than the previous Act, and that the phraseology of the Bill has undergone some slight changes as compared with the 1932 Act, I cannot discover any great change in the whole method of approach to the control of prices as envisaged in this Bill. I think that the Bill when it becomes an Act will be found to be as great an illusion to the public as the 1932 Act has been. For the past five years that Act has been in operation. Now we get from the Minister a kind of swan song for the Act in which he declares that we have learned something from experience of the past five years under the present Act. But the public paid very dearly for that experience which the Minister has gained. The public has had to live in a situation in which the commission was investigating while prices were rising. Of course, the Minister said that we have got some experience of the operation of the Act in the last five years. A question was addressed to the Minister to-day by Deputy Davin in which he asked the total number of references to the Prices Commission in regard to which the holding of a public inquiry was considered necessary. The Minister stated that the total number of such cases was 13, that the commission had completed their investigations into 11 and had presented reports to him on these 11 cases so investigated. He further stated that nine of these reports had been released for publication and that two, presumably, have not been released for publication. Will the Minister tell us what two have not been released for publication? If he got these two reports, what is the reason for their not being released for publication?

I addressed a question to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health asking him if he could say what was the estimated increase in the price of building materials between 1932 and the present day and the Minister charged with the responsibility for housing in this country said he did not know what the estimated increase was. But the Minister for Industry and Commerce has a report from the Prices Tribunal on the question of building materials. I think the Minister must have had it for nearly two years, but he has not had time to whisper something into the ear of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to give him some idea of the drift upwards.

Mr. Lemass

If the report is in existence for two years it has no relation to the Deputy's question which refers to 1932.

Mr. Norton

If the Minister would only take care to look at what was in the question, he would see that it has every relation to it. I asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to state the estimated percentage increase in the cost of building materials between 1932 and the present date. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has in his possession a report on the cost of building materials and he will not release it. Why? What is the purpose of suppressing that report? What other report is being suppressed and what is the reason for doing it? We saw a share issue the other day by a firm engaged in the production of building materials and the shares were subscribed 12 times over in a couple of hours. The Minister has a report in his possession from this tribunal on the question of the cost of building materials and we cannot get it out of the Minister. The Minister is reluctant to disclose it while a firm engaged in the production of building materials can get their capital subscribed 12 times over in two hours. We learn by experience, the Minister says. We ought to know from the Minister why these two reports have not been issued, why the public are not being given the information contained in these reports and what is the inside reason for suppressing them.

Mr. Davin

In the public interest.

Mr. Norton

We have had this Act in operation for five years and, so far as one can judge, it does not appear that the officer responsible for conducting investigations has spent very much time in conducting investigations. There may have been private investigations; there may have been non-public investigations but, so far as the public are concerned, there is no evidence that there has been any real effort to conduct investigations by the officer responsible for the effective administration of this Act. There have been very few Orders made reducing the prices of commodities. I think that so far as retail prices are concerned, there was only one Order made. That was on the eve of the recent election, when an Order was made reducing the price of one pair of boots to some outraged customer, and that was blazoned forth in the Press.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy learned that from Deputy O'Sullivan. It is not true in every case.

Mr. Norton

It was in the Irish Press, and the Minister said earlier to-day that everything in the Irish Press is true.

Mr. Lemass

The commission never investigated the price of boots.

Mr. Norton

I did not say it did. If the Minister would only listen, he would learn much more about the price of boots and other commodities than he appears to know at present. What I said was that the Controller of Prices made an inquiry at the request of some outraged customer, and as a result of that inquiry he discovered that this particular customer was overcharged by 5/-, just on the eve of the recent election. He directed that the customer should get back that amount. That was blazoned forth as an example of the magnificently efficient way in which the Tribunal functions.

Mr. Lemass

It was not.

Mr. Norton

Five shillings after five years, spread over 3,000,000 people! Five shillings on one pair of boots scattered amongst 3,000,000 of people. The members of the commission investigated the price of flour, and they told the Minister that the millers were making £150,000 per year more than was a reasonable profit. If the commission devoted all the time, the consideration and the care to the examination of this matter that the Minister states, presumably they were qualified to express an opinion on the matter after investigation. The commission told the Minister that the millers were making £150,000 a year more than was a reasonable profit, and the Minister has done nothing in regard to that. Although he was made aware of the fact that this amount of money was raked out of the pockets of the consumers of bread and flour, nothing has been done to remedy that situation. Of course in this Bill the very same defects that were in the previous Act are being perpetuated. The commission will investigate and will report to the Minister. If the report is of a kind which the Minister does not want published, it will not be published. When it says that some persons are making £150,000 a year more than they should be allowed to make, the Minister will do nothing, and the situation will drag on in the same delightful way as at present for those who are pocketing the £150,000 a year.

I think this Bill is a desperately poor contribution to a situation where the cost of living is rising rapidly. The best evidence of that fact can be found in the Irish Trade Journal published by the Department of Industry and Commerce. I am quoting now from the September issue, which was in circulation within the past two days. Here are the official figures presented by the Department. They show that the cost-of-living index figure in Mid-February, 1933, was 151, July, 1914, being taken at the base figure of 100. The index figure had risen from 151 in 1933 to 167 in February, 1937, an increase of 16 points. In Mid-May, 1933, the index figure was 148, and in Mid-May, 1937, it was 167, 19 points higher. In Mid-August, 1933, it was 149. In Mid-August, 1937, it was 171, 22 points higher. That is the last month for which the figures are available.

In a situation in which the cost of living is rapidly increasing, as reported by the Department, the Minister offers us an anæmic Bill of this kind, which, in my opinion, will do nothing whatever to relieve the situation of rising prices. However, figures expressed in a percentage of that kind often do not give Deputies an opportunity of judging the real situation, and it might be better, therefore, to quote some other figures related to the actual prices of commodities. Those figures were furnished to me by the Minister in this House on 10th March, 1937, as reported at column 1401. I asked the Minister to relate the prices of certain commodities at mid-February in each year from 1933 to 1937, and in his official reply he gave me the figures for Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway. I asked for the figures for two other places, Tullamore and Naas, but the Minister was not in a position to supply the information from those towns.

Mr. Lemass

Does the Deputy offer those figures as evidence that there is profiteering going on?

Mr. Norton

Will the Minister allow me to make my own case on those figures?

Mr. Lemass

Is that the Deputy's case?

Mr. Norton

No. What I am saying to the Minister is that in a situation where prices are rising rapidly we are offered a harmless anæmic Bill of that variety.

Mr. Lemass

The Bill is not about that at all. The Deputy does not understand the Bill. The purpose of this Bill is not to prevent prices from rising: it is to prevent profiteering.

Mr. Norton

Then the Minister must have a different copy to what I have.

Mr. Lemass

Apparently.

Mr. Norton

Well, I got this one from the Minister, and I think he ought to circulate correct Bills. This Bill is described as the Control of Prices Bill. How can you have a Bill controlling prices without taking cognisance of what prices are?

Mr. Lemass

Quite so.

Mr. Norton

The Minister says "Quite so." Then there is no more to be said.

Mr. Lemass

Prices can go up without profiteering being in evidence.

Mr. Norton

I am going to show that the Minister, confronted with a situation where prices are rising rapidly, has not discharged his functions to the community within the ambit of this harmless Bill.

Mr. Lemass

Is that what the Deputy is going to show now?

Mr. Norton

Yes, if the Minister will just have patience. According to the Minister's figures, given on the date which I have just quoted, the price of coal in February, 1933, was 30 pence per cwt. and in February, 1937, it was 34 pence per cwt. The price of flour in February, 1933, was 1/10 per stone and in February, 1937, it was 3/- per stone.

Mr. Davin

That is not profiteering!

Mr. Norton

The price of bread in February, 1933, was 4¼d. per two lb. loaf and in February, 1933, it was 5½d. per two lb. loaf. It is sixpence now. In February, 1933, tea was 3/- per lb., and the figure for 1937 is 3/—recently gone up. In February, 1933, sugar was 2½d. per lb. and in February, 1937, it was 3½d.

Mr. Lemass

Recently gone down.

Mr. Norton

It is still higher than it is elsewhere. As you go on, you find that potatoes are up by 4d. in the stone; bacon is up by 5d. in the lb.; beef is up; mutton is up.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy give the volume and the column?

Mr. Norton

Volume 65, column 1401. Those figures prove conclusively that during the past five years there has been a very substantial upward tendency in the cost of living in this country. A Bill of this kind is now introduced, having been circulated on the eve of the last election, with the object of controlling prices. I venture to say that anybody who pins his faith to this Bill is going to discover that it will be just as cruel an illusion as the present Prices Act, and that it will do nothing whatever—because of the manner in which it is drafted—to deal with a situation in which prices are rising rapidly. You have in this country at the present time a flour and bread situation which ought to bestir the Government into taking action in the matter. The Prices Tribunal appointed by the Minister has told him that the millers are making £150,000 a year more than they ought to be allowed to make, and in view of the fact that bread is now 1/- for a four lb loaf here while it is only 8d. in Great Britain——

Mr. Lemass

That is not so.

Mr. Norton

What is it in Great Britain? It may have risen to 8½d. within the past week. I will even allow that it is 9d.

Mr. Lemass

You have got to relate the quality of one with the quality of the other. Read the report of the Tariff Commission for example.

Mr. Norton

I read the report of the Tariff Commission, and I read also the fact that the millers are raking in £150,000 more than they ought to; but the Minister will do nothing, although the people of this country are now paying for bread a substantially higher price than that at which bread can be bought in the Six Counties and Great Britain.

Mr. Lemass

It has gone up less here than in Great Britain.

Mr. Norton

It is dearer here than in Great Britain.

Mr. Lemass

The increase has been proportionally less.

Mr. Norton

Here?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. Norton

As compared with Great Britain?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. Norton

What is the price of the 2 lb. loaf here as compared with Great Britain?

Mr. Lemass

That is another question.

Mr. Norton

It is 25 per cent. dearer here than in Great Britain.

Mr. Lemass

It is a different type of loaf.

Mr. Norton

There may be varieties of loaves.

Mr. Lemass

The standard loaf is what the Deputy has quoted.

Mr. Norton

I make the statement to the Minister that bread is being sold in Great Britain much cheaper than it is being sold here, and that we have had no adequate explanation as to why the Irish consuming public should pay more for their bread than is being paid next door. If there is disparity in the price we ought to be told the reason.

Mr. Lemass

One of the reasons is that they want a different type of bread which requires more flour.

Mr. Norton

Does that justify the 25 per cent. increase here?

Mr. Lemass

Not entirely, but it is one of the explanations. Another is the fact that wages are much higher.

Mr. Norton

To what extent do wages play an important part in this business?

Mr. Lemass

I am merely giving it as another reason. Still another reason is that flour is dearer.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear; that is the real reason.

Mr. Norton

Has the Minister investigated what the price of the loaf would be if the baker were to work for nothing?

Mr. Lemass

It is set out in full in the commission's report.

Mr. Norton

Has the Minister any idea what it would be?

Mr. Lemass

I do not know, but the Deputy will find it set out in full in the report.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy read it all.

Mr. Lemass

And he has forgotten it.

Mr. Norton

It is because the Deputy has read it all that he is not satisfied that there is any valid reason why the price of bread here should be so high compared with the price of bread in Great Britain or the Six Counties. Various efforts have been made to give some explanation as to why bread and flour prices are so dear here. Apparently all that is going to happen under this Bill in respect of flour and bread will be that the Minister will not do anything in connection with what the millers are raking off from the industry and if anybody complains at a future date he will have another inquiry and the inquiry will go on for months. If it is suggested to him that he should do something about the matter and that the millers are making abnormal profits, the Minister will simply do nothing.

We have arrived at a situation where prices are rising so rapidly as to constitute an attack on the standard of living of those who are in receipt of fixed incomes. Tea prices have gone up, bacon has reached famine prices, although the producers of pigs are not getting anything like a decent return for their produce. I wonder has the Minister any proposals for dealing with a situation of that kind, apart from the rather harmless ones contained in this Bill? If there is one industry that ought to be controlled in the national interests, and that lends itself to that, it is the flour industry. If a case can be made for the establishment of a corporation such as we have in regard to sugar beet, then there are as many, if not more, reasons for doing the same in respect of the flour-milling industry.

It has been shown that there is a wide disparity of prices, that the miller is raking off £150,000 more than he ought to get; it has been shown that prices here are higher than in Great Britain, and, in a situation of that kind, surely the Minister ought to apply his energy in order to seek an effective remedy by bringing that industry under public control. Similarly in respect of tea, every individual trader is allowed to buy it where he likes and from whom he likes. The Minister ought to give some consideration to the idea of the State buying tea in the best markets at the cheapest rate, or creating an agency for that purpose, so as to enable the community to get the benefit of large scale buying of tea.

Mr. Lemass

Or bear the loss?

Mr. Norton

At the present time the community is bearing the whole loss, all because of a disinclination on the part of the Minister to remedy the existing situation. Tea is higher here than in Great Britain, bread is higher, bacon is higher, flour is higher and so also is a whole range of other commodities. If the Minister will only read the journal published by his own Department, and if he has any respect for the figures published therein, he will see perfectly well that that journal provides conclusive evidence that the cost of commodities in this country is much higher.

Mr. Lemass

The increase in the cost of food since 1931 has been less here than in Great Britain.

Mr. Norton

The Minister says that the increase in the cost of food here since 1931 has been less than in Great Britain.

Mr. Dillon

And he boasts of it.

Mr. Norton

We are living in circumstances where we have to ask ourselves what is the cost of various commodities here compared with Great Britain and, presented with that situation, the facts show that the cost of these commodities here is much higher. The Minister may think he will get along all right here with his logic-chopping, but that will not get him far in the face of existing facts outside. If you go into a shop to buy a loaf, you will not obtain much in return for logic-chopping; you will, however, ascertain that the price of the loaf is dearer here than across the Channel.

Mr. Lemass

Without higher prices we cannot increase the wages of the agricultural workers.

Mr. Norton

Is that a new reason?

Mr. Lemass

Can you suggest any remedy?

Mr. Norton

Why not take the £150,000 from the millers? Your own tribunal have told you that the millers raked off that amount.

Mr. Lemass

It must be a long time since the Deputy read that report.

Mr. Davin

Why not give the money to the wheat producer and so help him to increase wages?

Mr. Lemass

Where is it?

Mr. Davin

It was mentioned in the report you have.

Mr. Lemass

Do not take Deputy Norton's word for it; read it yourself.

Mr. Norton

If the Minister would only read it himself and stop advising others to read it, he would learn a lot more about the prices of bacon and flour. I think at least two things will happen under this Bill; one is that prices will continue to increase and the commission will continue to investigate. The commission will make more investigations, they will spend months examining accounts, hearing evidence and presenting reports to the Minister. The awkward ones will be suppressed. In the meantime, the cost of living will increase rapidly and the Minister will tell the people that he has no power under the legislation to do the radical things he is asked to do. What happened under previous measures of this character? You had a Control of Prices Act working for the last five years. The only thing that happened under that was that the cost of living increased while the commission investigated. The cost of living has increased from 1932 to date.

Mr. Lemass

For some years it was falling rapidly.

Mr. Norton

What will happen during the next five years will be that the commission will continue to investigate and prices will continue to go up. This Bill is merely an illusion. If the Minister is not prepared to take steps much more drastic than are envisaged in this Bill, and take them in respect of the staple articles of food used in working class households——

Mr. Lemass

What steps?

Mr. Norton

The bacon and flour-milling situation is one that ought to be grappled with immediately. In a situation like this millers ought not to be allowed to get away with the profits which they have been getting away with, according to the report of the Minister's own tribunal. The flour industry is one which lends itself admirably to public control, and it ought to be controlled in the public interest so as to give the public bread and flour at the cheapest price. You are not getting bread and flour at a price to-day which would be possible if the industry were regulated in the interests of the consumers, not of the millers.

This whole question of the increase in the cost of living is having a very serious effect on those tied down to static incomes. The Unemployment Assistance Act was introduced in 1933. Certain rates of benefit were provided in that Act. When it was introduced the index figure was 149. Now the index figure is 170, so that the increase in the cost of living in the meantime has had the effect of drastically reducing the purchasing power of the rates of benefit provided in the 1933 Act. Similarly, in respect of static old age pensions, the increased cost of living has caused a reduction in the purchasing power of that type of income.

Mr. Lemass

Does the Deputy think that the old age pensions should go up with the cost of living?

Mr. Norton

I think they ought to be substantially higher than they are to-day. What I am mainly directing attention to at this stage is the Minister's apparent unwillingness to grapple effectively with the problem of rising prices here, and I say that those rising prices are having the effect of reducing the purchasing power of old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions and unemployment assistance benefit.

Mr. Lemass

My policy here is doing that?

Mr. Norton

The Minister's unwillingness to deal with the present situation of rapidly rising prices is doing it; his keeping these people upon a static income is having the effect of reducing the purchasing power of that small income. If the Minister thinks rising prices are desirable——

Mr. Lemass

That is a dangerous argument. It justifies cutting the old age pension under the Act of 1924.

Mr. Norton

Now, let the Minister be sensible. I am saying to the Minister that his permitting an unchecked rise in the cost of living is equivalent to permitting a reduction in the purchasing power of those persons who are tied down to static incomes. That is the effect of his action. Is not that the merest commonsense? To-day 10/- will buy less than it bought in 1932.

Mr. Lemass

And more than it bought in 1924.

Mr. Norton

What credit is the Minister claiming for that?

Mr. Lemass

I suggest to the Deputy that it is very unwise for him to start arguing that old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, and other pensions should fluctuate with the cost of living.

Mr. Norton

I suggest to the Minister that I know this subject just as thoroughly as he does. I know that old age pensions are less now than when they were first granted at the time of the British administration, and I know that the old age pensioners never got the benefit that they should have got because of the rise in the cost of living. Compared with 1909, the old age pensioners in 1937 are suffering all the time and they will suffer more because of the rise in the cost of living. As for the Unemployment Assistance Act which the Minister himself introduced, we have the example of a family of persons tied down to 12/6 a week. In a town with a population of less than 7,000, a man, his wife and five children are in receipt of 12/6 a week. That is what that family got when the cost-of-living figure was 149, and that family is expected to live on it now when the cost-of-living figure is 170.

Mr. Lemass

That man and his wife and family were never expected to live on it.

Mr. Norton

He is living on it.

Mr. Lemass

He is not.

Mr. Norton

What is the use of cutting into logic-chopping of that kind? The fact is that when a man has no other income but that 12/6 a week he is living on it. Whether the Minister intended that he should live on it or not, that man's income of 12/6 a week is now substantially reduced because of the increase in the cost of living. The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot welcome a rise in prices, or, if he does welcome a rise in prices, then these people should be enabled to meet it. In the case I have mentioned they are not enabled to meet it. In that way great hardship is imposed upon them. Is the Minister telling the public that this Bill is not going to do anything to improve the situation? In my opinion, time will prove whether I am correct or not. This Bill will operate in the same way as the previous Bill—plenty of investigation and a substantial rise in the cost of living. That is all that the Minister is doing under this Bill.

Mr. Dillon

Somebody else is learning from experience as well as the Minister. In 1932 the Minister brought in his fraudulent Bill. Speaking on the Second Stage of the Control of Prices Bill on the 20th October, 1932, as reported in column 187, volume 44, No. 1, Deputy Norton said: "With Deputy Murphy, who has already spoken for the Labour Party, I welcome this Bill." I ventured to say, as reported in column 198, volume 44: "Before the Ministers disappear I just want to say a word about this Bill. This Bill is a fraud."

Mr. Lemass

And the Minister did not disappear from the House.

Mr. Dillon

He did.

Mr. Lemass

Several Deputies, colleagues of Deputy Dillon, disappeared.

Mr. Dillon

Was that Bill a fraud or was it not? Yes, the greatest piece of fraud that ever was produced in this country, and remember it was largely produced for the purpose of whitewashing the Labour Party because at that time they were helping the Government Party to increase the cost of the people's living. I remember warning the Labour Party that the things they were helping the Government to do then were going to place an intolerable burden upon the backs of the consuming public. I warned them that the Bill of 1932, which was introduced to fool them, was going to have no effect whatever on the cost of prices.

Mr. Davin

Is not Deputy Dillon always warning somebody, including his own colleagues?

Mr. Dillon

You did not listen then, and now you are complaining that the cost of living has gone too high for the people and that that Act has no effect at all. The Minister has told us that he is learning by experience a great many things. I was tempted to interject: "Yes, you have learned a great many things that the people of Ireland knew years ago, but you have learned these things at the expense of the Irish people." The Labour Party is learning them at the expense of the people. They are learning them at the expense of the consuming public. What can a Prices Commission set up under this Bill do? We are going through exactly the same performance and the same smokescreen and fraud in 1937 as we went through in 1932. All the Prices Commission can tell you is that the price of everything is going up. If you ask them why it is that the price of everything is going up, the only honest answer is—"because the manufacturers in this country are expected and advised by Deputy Dowdall to take all the advantage they can of the tariffs."

Speaking in January, 1935, at a meeting of the Incorporated Chamber of Commerce, Deputy Dowdall said: "With regard to the statement that people were taking advantage of tariffs I can only say that it is only human nature to do so, and personally I would avail of them to make as much profit as I could." That is Deputy Dowdall's public statement of his attitude and it is the attitude of every member of the Fianna Fáil Party in regard to tariffs. The Deputy was chosen as a candidate by the Fianna Fáil Party and he was returned by the Fianna Fáil Party on that gospel— that you have got a tariff and that you are to avail of that tariff to make as much profit as you can. You are finding a great many of these tariffs 100 per cent. and 75 per cent. Deputy Dowdall fixes us with notice that if he gets a 70 per cent. tariff he is going to raise the cost of the article he is producing under that tariff by 70 per cent. He is going to raise the price as high as he can raise it within the tariff walls.

We are told that the Prices Commission is going to reduce the cost of living, while Deputy Dowdall has fixed the Minister and his supporters with notice that they will take the fullest advantage of any tariff they put up. If the Minister puts 100 per cent. tariff on an article is not that an invitation to increase the price as close to 100 per cent. as it is practicable to do? And it must be said that Deputy Dowdall is not an ungrateful man, because speaking on the 1st August, 1932, in the Grand Parade in the City of Cork the Deputy said: "Firms who have got tariffs and who are waxing fat on them (he was under no illusions as to how the boys were doing it) got more and more money than they ever expected" and he said, without putting a tooth in it, that they were "damned swine if they did not back the Government that was giving them those tariffs." Deputy Dowdall afterwards expressed regret for having referred to any people as swine. But the spoken words stand. Deputy Dowdall is a prominent industrialist of high standing, and he knows what is going on in industrial circles. On his authority we are informed that under the tariff policy the industrialists were waxing fat, waxing so fat that he could not believe that any of them would be so ungrateful as not to back up the Government for all they were worth; just to show that they liked getting fat, even at the expense of their neighbours.

We are going to have a Prices Commission. We are all plain people here. Is there any man in this country who requires a Prices Commission to tell him that the price of flannelette has gone up; that the price of flour has gone up; that the price of sugar has gone up; that the price of housing has gone up; that the price of shoes, and the price of bacon has gone up? Does anyone want a Commission to tell him that? The price of flannelette has gone up because a tariff of 33? was put on by the Labour Party and the Fianna Fáil Party. They jointly voted for that tariff in this House, with the result that when a working man's wife goes in to buy 3½ yards of flannelette to make a nightdress she pays on an average 10½d. tax on her purchase. That is the plain, simple fact and it is the truth. That 10½d. could be used by that woman to buy milk for the children, that they are not getting, because she has to buy an article on which there is a tariff of 33? per cent. Take the price of flour. People are yowling about the price of bread. The price of bread is controlled by the price of flour, and the price of flour is controlled by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Agriculture. Every step that the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Agriculture took to raise the price of flour was done with the aid of and with the exhortation of the Labour Party. They backed them in raising the price.

Mr. Davin

Quote something in support of that.

Mr. Dillon

Were we not voted down time and again by the Labour Party and the Fianna Fáil Party combined, when the wheat scheme was put through?

Mr. Davin

We did not vote to increase the price of bread.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputies being responsible public men should know what they were doing, and they must have known the consequences of their acts. If you co-operated in raising the price of the raw material the existing millers could agree on any price they liked. If Deputies did not realise, when they were doing that that they were going to raise the price of flour, then before committing themselves they ought to think out such matters at greater length.

Mr. Norton

Did not Deputy Cosgrave say that Fine Gael proposed to continue the wheat scheme?

Mr. Dillon

Every rational man in this country realises that you cannot have revolutions every Monday morning. In a democratic country the only way you can get acceptance of the law is to secure a full understanding of any question and when a scheme is in operation you have to allow it to go on operating until people come to your view and say it is uneconomic and bad. Until you can get them to do that, there is no use taking them by the throat and forcing them to do something they do not understand. I stand on that. If you are going to raise the cost of flour there is no use in going down to the cross-roads and yowling about the cost of bread. If you are going to take bread out of the children's mouths, take it out and boast about it. Do not take the bread out of their mouths with the right hand and chastise the Minister for Industry and Commerce with the left hand. I warned Ministers that if they raised the price of bread, by getting a subsidy for the wheat scheme out of the bread consumers instead of out of the Exchequer, the result would be to take bread out of the children's mouths. I say that if the wheat scheme is to be carried on every penny required to maintain it must be taken from the general taxpayer and not from the consumers of bread. I said that from the beginning. That is the policy of our Party. It was never the policy of Fianna Fáil except for the first year. Labour helped them to change.

Mr. Lemass

What would be the difference in the price of bread— nothing?

Mr. Dillon

It would be very substantial. The Minister need not try that. I have forgotten more about the price of bread than he ever knew. The price of bread at present, as to 1½d. on the 4 lb. loaf, is higher here because flour in this country is dearer, compared with Great Britain.

Mr. Lemass

How much dearer is flour?

Mr. Dillon

The Minister will get plenty of time to answer. There will be a Committee Stage, when we will go into these matters in greater detail. I will go as far as I think it desirable to go now. The price of flour in this country is from 10/- to 12/- a sack higher than in Great Britain. As near as you can go, 7/6 a sack means 1d. on the 4 lb. loaf. If flour is 10/- higher here than in Great Britain, the cost of flour is responsible for 1½d. of the 3d. difference which at present exists between the price of bread here and in Great Britain.

Mr. Davin

Are the millers profiteering?

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy seems to think that I am the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Davin

You know more than anyone.

Mr. Dillon

I assure the Deputy if I were the Minister for Industry and Commerce, he would not be in a state of suspense.

Mr. Davin

Do you not know more than anyone?

Mr. Dillon

I pointed out that the inevitable consequence of the present system is that you are going to have rings and a certain measure of profiteering going on all round. I do not say that I am familiar with all the details of the milling industry, because I am not. It is a very close borough. There are comparatively few millers in this country. It is a highly technical business. All I know is that the price of flour is 10/- or 12/- higher than in Great Britain, and that increase is partly due——

Mr. Lemass

It is not true.

Mr. Dillon

——to the wheat scheme, and partly due to profiteering, which is possible under the Minister's industrial policy. How much of the responsibility is due to profiteering and how much to the increased cost of the raw material, resulting from the wheat scheme, I am not in a position to say.

Mr. Davin

Do you believe the report of the Prices Commission?

Mr. Dillon

This is ridiculous. We must not have question and answer. The Deputy can intervene later. I think he will find we are on the one ground with regard to the milling industry. The point I want to drive home is that, whether the responsibility rests upon the millers or on the grain growers, ultimately the responsibility rests upon Ministers, because the wheat scheme is not inconsistent with a reasonable price for bread. If the wheat scheme was operated on a subsidy paid out of the Exchequer, the cost of the wheat scheme would fall on the taxpayer.

Mr. Lemass

What subsidy is the Deputy talking about?

Mr. Dillon

The subsidy on wheat. If the subsidy was paid by the Exchequer, the cost of bread would not be affected at all. It is not being paid by the Exchequer, but is being paid out of bread that has to go into the children's mouths. An agricultural wage of 24/- a week has been fixed. The 4-lb. loaf to-day costs 1/-. Imagine a man with four children going home to his family on Saturday night and the yield of his week's work is 2 dozen of bread. Out of that wage he has to pay rent, fuel, clothes, and feed the family. At the present standard of the cost of living, that man's total earnings for the week would be 2 dozen of bread. It is almost incredible that in the fifteenth year of this country's independence our people could be reduced to such a level. Look at sugar. In the last Budget the Government took a substantial sum off sugar. How many people realise that at present, with sugar ? a stone retail, about 2/6 of that amount is due to the expense of extracting sugar from beet? Every penny of that is being paid by the consumer. Here, again, I say that the cost of that product is entirely due to the Government. The fact that the consumers of sugar have to pay that price is due to the Government.

Mr. Lemass

How do they get sugar out of beet in other countries? How much dearer is sugar now than before we made it ourselves? Is it dearer at all?

Mr. Dillon

About 2/6 per stone.

Mr. Lemass

It is exactly the same price it was in 1931.

Mr. Dillon

Nonsense. The Minister chops logic ad infinitum and that, with the more gullible of his own supporters, always goes down. They want to swallow it. They had tied themselves to President de Valera's tail and they have got to stay tied or die. They are, therefore, prepared to swallow any absurdity the Minister for Industry and Commerce launches in this House. But other people do not believe that sort of “cod.” The price of sugar is, at least, 2/6 per stone dearer—perhaps it is more—as the result of our desire to extract it from beet. That is £1 a cwt. or £20 a ton.

Take the price of bacon. The price of bacon at the present time is from 3d. to 4d. per lb. dearer than it ought to be, because the Government is using the money of the Irish consumer to subsidise the exports of Irish bacon to Great Britain.

Mr. Lemass

Is it dearer than in Great Britain?

Mr. Dillon

Much. In 1934, seven lbs. of long, clear bacon cost 6/5. To-day it costs 8/9, or 4/8 per stone more. Suppose that money were going into the pockets of the farmer as increased income, a defence could be made for it. You might produce some compensating advantage to other sections of the community, but the fact is that it is going into the pockets of the British people as a bounty on our exports of bacon to Great Britain. That bounty is made necessary by the fact that this country is engaged in an economic war with Great Britain. The Minister does not deny what I have said. Nobody denies it. But what is the use of setting up a Prices Commission to tell us that? We all know it. It can be remedied overnight if the Government want to do it. They know the reason for the high prices as well as anybody else. They have given us full and fair notice that they have no intention of remedying these things. They are going to look for reasons for high costs that do not exist and, when they have failed to find them, they will come back in triumph and, like the crowd who looked at the naked Chinese emperor, they will say: "There are no high costs." When Deputy Norton, like the honest little boy, gets up and says that the emperor has no clothes on at all, when he tells the Minister that, his inquiries notwithstanding, the cost of living is high, the Minister will shout him down and say that the high costs do not exist.

In the meantime, a man earning 12/- a week goes home with two dozen of bread to face his family. I am no philanthropist. I do not profess to be a charitable man at all. My principal anxiety is that when I see a hardworking man—a man who has done a harder week's work than I have done— starving with his family, I am quite unable to enjoy the goods the Lord has given me. For my own peace of mind, I want to see these men with a reasonable standard of living, which they have not got now. It should be intolerable to any decent man to go to a comfortable home, to sit before a good fire or enjoy a decent meal with the knowledge that there are thousands of families struggling to exist on 24/- a week. No Christian family can exist upon that wage, and that is the standard wage fixed by the Government for people who work upon the land.

Mr. Lemass

It is not fixed under this Bill.

Mr. Dillon

It is not, but it is affected by this Bill. What was 24/- five years ago is reduced by what the Government has been doing to the value of 15/-. The Minister philosophically says that that does not come under this Bill. The Minister does not have to worry. He passes the laws and expects miracles to happen. The laws are passed, but no miracles happen, and the people sink lower and lower into misery and destitution. When people start to talk about the cost of living, they concentrate on foodstuffs. But you cannot dress a family in bacon, nor can you cover a child's nakedness with butter. An essential element of the cost of living is the cost of clothes, the cost of fuel, rent and rates. Remember, a farm labourer who lives in an agricultural labourer's cottage has to pay rates. They are rising and rising fast. Remember, he has to buy clothes for his children. Will anybody have the temerity to deny that the cost of clothing has gone up enormously in the last two or three years? Will anybody deny that the cost of boots has gone up 2/- or 3/- a pair within the past 12 months? Why? Is it not largely as a result of the Minister's policy? You have got to face the fact that if you want industrial development behind a sky-high tariff system, you cannot escape from two things— one is immediate and the other is remote. The first is that the standard of living of the people will fall because the cost of everything is going to get dearer and the income of the people will not rise as fast as the prices. The other is that, ultimately, if you have a sky-high tariff system, you will get Socialism, because, sooner or later, the argument of Deputy O'Brien will prevail. Deputy O'Brien is a Socialist and proud of it. His argument is that, if you are going to have a sky-high tariff system, why let a small group of shareholders in companies pluck the public? If the community is to be plucked, he says, let the community pluck itself. Can you answer him? Is there any answer to him? If we are going to provide 100 per cent. tariffs behind which the community is to be plucked, why should half-a-dozen people on the quays or down the country do the plucking? Why should we not all have a share in it? If a handful of feathers are to be taken out of my tail, why should I not get, at least, one feather?

Mr. Norton

We shall manage that for you all right.

Mr. Dillon

That is the question. If it is the policy of the Government that a handful of feathers should be plucked out of my plumage every time I make a purchase, surely I am entitled to one feather out of the handful. At present, five or six small groups of capitalists do all the plucking and get all the feathers and the unfortunate consumer watches his stock of feathers steadily dwindling. As his covering gets thinner, he shivers more and more while his standard of living falls.

In that situation, there is no answer to Deputy O'Brien's argument, and I want to resist Deputy O'Brien's argument because I am not a Socialist and I think Socialism is the ultimate disaster that can be brought upon this country, but so certainly as we are standing here, if the present Government's economic policy continues, Socialism is the inevitable and logical conclusion.

You have Deputy Norton here to-day saying: "If you are going to allow the consuming public to be plucked by the flour millers, abolish the flour mills and socialise the industry." How can you answer it? If you are going to facilitate the millers to plunder the public, how can you challenge his claim that if the plundering is to be done the community should do it? I see no answer. If the individual entrepreneur operating under a capitalist system cannot give good value in competition with other competitors, he has no reason for existence, and the capitalists and industrialists of this country who speak with Deputy Dowdall's voice and who say: “They should take advantage of the tariffs; it is only human nature to do so and, personally, they would avail of them to make as much profit as they could” are cutting their own throats, because you may do that for a certain time, but if you go on doing it indefinitely, you are going to force an unwilling people to resort to Socialism which will be the supreme disaster for this country.

The Minister to-day—he has gone now and I find it hard to tax him with gross inaccuracy—thought to shake off his shoulders the responsibility for making the initial bread price Order. As a matter of fact, the Minister was indisposed at the time, and the first bread price Order was made by the acting Minister, Mr. Derrig. When that first price Order was made, the price of bread was not related to the price of flour. There was a flat price Order made with regard to bread. It was in the second price Order, founded upon the Prices Commission's report, that the price of bread was related to the price of flour and that is the Order that is operating at present; but it is noteworthy that the actual price of flour has nothing to do with the price of bread, but that it is the price which the Minister says should be the price of flour that affects the price of bread. Very frequently, the price which the Minister says should be the price of flour is not within 4/- of the actual price of flour. At the present time, the Minister says that the price of flour is 51/- a sack. The actual price is nearer 54/6. That is what the millers are getting for it.

We are going to have three Prices Commissioners set up—in fact, we are going to have the old Tariff Commission of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government re-established. We all remember how, in 1932, that commission was swept aside as an archaic and undesirable absurdity. It is now being resurrected. They have learned by experience that it was the best kind of machinery and the boys are all to be taught now to cheer loudly at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis about the lovely new Prices Commission and they will all be blandly ignorant of the fact that they are, in fact, cheering the old Cumann na nGaedheal Tariff Commission about which they got apoplectic at the street corners five years ago. What is going to happen to the members of this commission if they have not got the same kind of security of tenure that a High Court judge has? If they are honest men and competent men, they have to come to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and tell him "Any profiteering or any undue cost of goods is due to your tariff policy and you must bring the tariffs down to a reasonable level or the profiteering will go on." Do you imagine that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is going to sit down under his own civil servants telling him that he is an ass? Not at all. They will be given clearly to understand that they have either to strike the same note as the Minister, or quit. Remember that we have cases in the Government service of not very long ago when highly respected civil servants were ignominiously kicked out because a Minister did not like the way they were going on, although he could bring no charge——

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think that matter should be reopened.

Mr. Dillon

Why? It is one of the notorious scandals in the public life of this country and I intend to refer to it at every cross-road for the next ten or 15 years, with the help of God. I want to remind the Vice-President whenever I can that he was guilty of one of the basest acts of ingratitude and injustice any man was ever guilty of in this country.

Mr. Norton

This is not a cross-road.

Mr. Davin

It is a cross fire.

Mr. Dillon

I have not the slightest hesitation in returning to it, or in doing so as often as I mention that distinguished public servant's name. I have no reason to draw my dogs and I never shall, and I believe that nobody who cares for decency in public life ever will. That example is before us, and if the members of the Prices Commission are not prepared to strike the same note as the Minister, they may get as short shrift as that distinguished public servant got. Yet we are told that that commission is going truthfully to report on the cost of living in this country.

Mr. Davin

Is the Deputy referring to General O'Duffy?

Mr. Dillon

I am referring to Mr. Edward McCarron, the Secretary of the Department of Local Government and Public Health. The Minister interrupted Deputy Norton to say that the cost of food had not increased in this country as much as it had in Great Britain; but he did not go on to add that the disproportionate increase in the price of bacon, sugar, butter and bread was offset by the fall in the price of meat resulting from the destruction of our market for live stock in Great Britain. Is that something to be proud of? Is it something to be proud of that an inflated cost of living at one end of the scale is more than offset by the ruin of our own people and the forcing of our own people to sell the produce of their land at bankrupt prices because their market has been destroyed, at the other? The Minister for Industry and Commerce is proud of that and the poor, miserable Minister for Agriculture is flapping his hands in futile futility in Upper Merrion Street.

This Prices Commission is the same old fraud with a new ribbon tied in its hair, and this new ribbon is the right to advise the Minister that if he does not lower the tariffs or increase the import quotas, there is no other effective way of stopping profiteering. We told him that in 1932. The Labour Party, fortunately, in the intervening five years, have learned by experience what we tried to teach by advice in 1932. I wonder if, even now, the Minister for Industry and Commerce will listen to the joint representations of this Party and the Labour Party as to the urgent necessity for reducing the cost of living? If he will, let him and his friends open their eyes to this fact, that there is only one way effectively to control prices in this country, or in any other country, and that is to allow a reasonable measure of competition to obtain.

I have a last word to say and I make no apology for saying it. This Bill is supposed to be the Government's policy for bringing down the cost of living, for abolishing profiteering. It is going to fail and it raises altogether ab initio the whole question of the economic policy this country is going to pursue. We have to make up our minds whether the present limitless tariff system is going to go on. If it is, and if the quota system is to be combined with it, there will be no reduction in the cost of living. There will be in this country eventually Socialism and there will be in the world inevitable war. I am comparing now our method with the Government's method of controlling prices. Our method is a reasonable measure of competition and their method is a Prices Commission to report to the Minister. I went recently, with some of my colleagues in this House, to the meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Paris.

Mr. Friel

This is an election speech.

Mr. Dillon

I have not the benefit of this Deputy's acquaintance. Is he unwell?

Mr. T. Kelly

No, he is all right.

Mr. Dillon

I suggest to Deputy Kelly, who has had a little more experience, to take care of him for a few moments. The Deputy seems to imagine that he has strayed into a nursery. Perhaps he has a rattle in his pocket. At the Inter-Parliamentary Conference, I listened to representatives from other countries, and eventually I challenged all those Deputies and Senators there assembled to say a word, any of them, in defence of tariffs, and there was not a single Deputy or Senator from any parliament in the whole world who dared to get up in that assembly and say a word in defence of tariffs. Every delegation, from every parliament from the four corners of the earth, got up and declared that tariffs had brought them only disaster after disaster, and that their sole desire was to see the restoration of a greater measure of free trade throughout the world.

Mr. Moore

And the Deputy says that was in France, where a Socialist Government recently increased tariffs.

Mr. Dillon

I think the Deputy is misinformed. I invited any Senator or Deputy to get up and speak one word in defence of tariffs, and there was not one amongst them who would do it. On the contrary, there was one matter about which absolute unanimity was secured amongst all the delegations, and that was a resolute calling for greater freedom of trade amongst the nations of the earth.

Mr. Norton

Would the Deputy say if the Fianna Fáil Deputies who accompanied him agreed with that?

Mr. Dillon

That is not a matter on which I propose to speak, but what I to say is that the delegations at the Inter-Parliamentary Union are not required, unless they desire to do so, to give vocal expression to their views. However, I am not going to render an account to the House in connection with the delegation from this State to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, but the fact is on record that no single delegation there, and no single individual, got up to defend tariffs. I am telling the House precisely what I did at the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference, and in doing so I am perhaps more honest than most people.

Mr. Norton

Why?

Mr. Dillon

Because a great many of the Continental representatives who were there wept tears in their desire to get free trade, but when they went back to their respective countries they agitated violently for tariffs because they happened to have a £10 note invested in some industry in the backwoods of Czechoslovakia or the highlands of Roumania, just as we wax eloquent about international co-operation in Geneva, but when we arrive back here we carry on the grand old war.

From the international point of view, and from the internal point of view, a revision of the tariff policy in this country is absolutely vital. I say to the Labour Party, that no matter what price-fixing Bill is brought in, no Prices Commission is effectively going to control prices in this country. They cannot do it because the wool can be pulled over their eyes every time. The one thing that operates in the continual control of prices night and day, week in and week out, month in and month out and year in and year out is competition. No merchant will charge more for his goods than his competitors charge, and if you have only two merchants competing you are going to get goods sold at the lowest possible penny that they can be produced and distributed at. So true is that, that if you allow competition to operate unrestricted, it will operate to drive prices too low, because competitors will get so eager to cut prices down that they will start to trench on the minimum wage standards that ought to obtain in their factories and shops.

I say that our objective should be to get the maximum of competition combined with a legally regulated and accepted standard of living for the wage-earners in industry or trade. Having got that, and having laid down that the wage-earner must not get less than a certain sum for his work, you can then say to the industrialists or the shopkeepers or distributors: "Go ahead now, and after you have charged those expenses to your business, make as much profit as you can in open competition." Having established that system within our own shores, our object should be, if prices are to be effectively kept down, to extend such arrangements beyond our own shores, because, remember, the smaller the group of shopkeepers or manufacturers you have, the greater is the danger of rings being formed. While the workman gets a fair wage and good conditions, the ring proceeds to exploit the consuming public, to jack up prices until the consuming public rebels and takes a substitute. The consuming public will prefer to buy the substitute rather than pay the inflated prices that the small group forming the ring are asking for their products. If you try to extend the principle of unrestricted free trade throughout the world at the present time, you are immediately face to face with dumping from countries which have no set minimum standards for their work people. That means that they would be competing with our manufacturers who are compelled to maintain the minimum standards which the Dáil by its legislation has considered right and proper for our work people. A way to get round that is, I suggest, by adopting the policy of the Oslo group of nations, a policy which has had a great success. Go to the International Labour Office and say: "Take this group of industries in so many countries and fix a minimum standard of wages and conditions for that group to apply to all those countries."

Mr. Davin

On the Chinese basis.

Mr. Dillon

No. Invite the International Labour Office to come here and say: "There is a standard; will you get six other countries to conform to it? Because, if you can do that, we are prepared to enter into free trade relations with them. We do not trust their Governments any more than we are asking their Governments to trust us, but we can trust the International Labour Office, and ask it to force us in our country to maintain those standards and at the same time force five other countries to maintain the same standards in their countries. With those standards maintained we want free trade, and we want free trade in order that competition may operate to prevent our industrialists exploiting our community or the industrialists of the other five countries exploiting theirs. There is a last precaution that we want you to take. We are prepared not to put up tariffs against those other countries provided they do not employ inverted tariffs against us, and by inverted tariffs we mean export bounties."

The United States at the present time say that, if any Government gives an export bounty on anything exported to the United States, they will put on a tariff equal to whatever that bounty may be. We should take care to say to those countries that if they put an export bounty on anything they send here that we will put a tariff on it equal to the amount of the export bounty, because an export bounty is an inverted tariff. If you do what I have outlined you will get an effective machine which will prevent the formation of rings. You will prevent attempts at debasing the standard of living of the people, and you will secure at the same time to the consuming public reasonable value for the money they pay out.

I state without fear of contradiction that that is the only scheme that will secure these three things. No other scheme that can be devised will do it. If you are to go on setting up Prices Commissions from now until doomsday you will not get what I want, because those Prices Commissions will be sidetracked and fooled. The scheme that I have outlined will get what I have told you, and get it without any kind of interference by the State except in so far as States insist on the maintenance of reasonable labour conditions under the direction of the International Labour Office.

The Minister interrupted Deputy Norton and said to him: "How are you going to control prices if you do not like the contents of this Bill?" I think there is force in that challenge. I have outlined the way we would do it, the way we think it ought to be done, and I say that our way will work and that it will secure for our people a higher standard of living, a sound, solid, continuous industrial development and, at the same time, will protect our consumers. I say that the Minister for Industry and Commerce's way is going to fail in all three particulars. I say that his industrial policy is resulting in slave conditions for many of the workers, in the employment of young people in preference to grown-ups, in the exploitation of the consuming public on an unheard-of and unprecedented scale, and I say that the Government policy has produced only one general all-over-the-country fixed wage, and that is a wage of 24/- a week for agricultural workers. I say that that is one of the greatest scandals and public shames to which this country has ever been submitted in its history. Just imagine that the first agricultural wage fixed by an Irish Government, for the world to behold, is 24 "bob" a week. It must be the lowest wage fixed by any civilised Government in the world—certainly by any Christian Government in the world. There may be lower rates of wages fixed in the East—if there are, I do not know of them—but certainly it is the lowest wage that any Christian, democratic country in the world would dare to fix; and that is the first gesture that we made in the fixing of working conditions and wages for our own people. Is it not appalling that that should be the result of five years of Fianna Fáil's economic policy?

This Bill is a fraud, just as the Bill that was introduced five years ago was a fraud. The last Bill was a plain, homely fraud. This Bill is done up in frills and furbelows; but the frills and furbelows of this Bill will perish in the next five years and we will see it is the same silly and futile fraud as was the Bill of 1932. There is, happily, an alternative which would achieve all that this Oireachtas wants it to achieve, and I can only hope that the people of this country will afford those who are prepared to put that into operation an opportunity to do so soon.

Mr. Davin

Sir, Deputy Dillon has just repeated here to-night a portion of the speech which he insisted on recently delivering at the Inter-Parliamentary Conference in Paris, and I am sure, Sir, that to you, and to three or four other Deputies whom I see here in the House and who were official delegates at that conference, his interpretation of the way in which that famous speech was received by the delegates must be both funny and interesting to those of us who know the facts. Deputy Dillon was not on that occasion an official delegate, but he insisted on getting up on the rostrum against the wishes of some of his own colleagues.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think it advisable to discuss here the details of the Inter-Parliamentary Conference in Paris.

Mr. S. Morrissey

The Chair does not expect that the Deputy is going to discuss the Bill?

Mr. Dillon

On a point of explanation, Sir, I do not want to discuss the activities of the delegates of Dáil Eireann at the Inter-Parliamentary Conference, and it is rather embarrassing that it should be done, seeing that you, Sir, led the delegation.

An Ceann Comhairle

Such activities have never been debated in the Dáil.

Mr. Dillon

I do not think so, Sir. The ordinary matters that took place at such conferences have been discussed, but to discuss what passed between ourselves as members of the delegation is unprecedented. Deputy Davin's recollection of what passed is wholly false and highly untrue.

Mr. Davin

Surely, Sir, it is not a crime for me to suggest what is a fact: that Deputy Dillon has just repeated here to-night the free-trade speech which he delivered at the recent Inter-Parliamentary Conference in Paris. That is a fact.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. Davin

That is on the international records, and Deputy Dillon assured me that he was delighted and that, although he said something that was not in conformity with the wishes of his other colleagues, he wanted to have his name on the international records as having said something somewhere in favour of free trade outside of this House.

Mr. Dillon

On a point of personal explanation, Sir, I think we are really sinking to depths in this House which have no precedent. If every private conversation between Deputies is to be repeated in this House, we had better get down to the gutter. There are depths which are disgusting to every man, but if private conversations between Deputies are to be quoted, and quoted ex parte, then public life becomes impossible.

Mr. Davin

I rely, Sir,——

Mr. Dillon

On a rotten memory.

Mr. Davin

——on the records of the Conference to prove that what I say is correct, and I am rather surprised that Deputy Dillon should deny that he received a certain amount of pleasure by being allowed to deliver the speech, portion of which he delivered here to-night. I am not repeating a private conversation. I would apologise to the House and to Deputy Dillon if I were repeating a private conversation, and I would ask the Deputy to explain what he means by suggesting that I am repeating a private conversation. Delegates were there from all parts of the world—or at least a limited number of them just before luncheon—listening to him, and there are three or four in the House— I see that there are five now—who were listening to it. Surely, that is not private. I will admit that a lot of them left for their luncheon when Deputy Dillon arrived about the middle of his free trade speech, which none of them was prepared to swallow.

Deputy Dillon has accused the Labour Party—and it is true—with having welcomed the introduction of the forerunner to this Bill in 1932. We certainly did, because we hoped and believed that an honest attempt would be made to administer the measure which we were supporting at that time. We have criticised the administration of that Act many times since it was introduced, and we have raised many questions in connection with the control of prices and the failure of the Ministry to use the powers which we helped to give them by our votes in this House in 1932.

Mr. Lemass

In what way?

Mr. Davin

In what way? We accused the Minister, and I accuse him now, of having refused to carry out the report submitted to him by the Prices Commission in connection with the profiteering which was proved to have been carried out at a certain period by the flour millers of this country. The report was presented to him by the Prices Commission, and I presume that it was a unanimous report. That report was presented after evidence had been taken on oath from the millers and other people interested in the matter; and after the evidence had been carefully examined by the members of the commission they finally reported that the millers were making £150,000 per year profit in excess of what the commission regarded as a reasonable profit. Does the Minister deny that he received such a report?

Mr. Lemass

No; but the Deputy says that I was given powers to implement the recommendation of the commission. Does he remember what they recommended?

Mr. Davin

I charge the Minister with having refused or failed to give effect to that report.

Mr. Lemass

But what was the report?

Mr. Davin

The Minister did nothing.

Mr. Lemass

Does the Deputy remember what they reported on and what they recommended?

Mr. Davin

I have read what they reported. The Minister has done nothing. I ask the Minister: has he refused to do anything arising out of that report because he had not the powers to enable him to do so? Is that the Minister's reply?

Mr. Lemass

No; his reply is that the Deputy is wrong when he says that I have done nothing.

Mr. S. Morrissey

That is the Minister's usual reply.

Mr. Davin

I repeat it.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy was a member of the last Dáil and he should know that the Prices Commission drew up a formula upon which they stated the price of flour should be based. Does he remember that formula, which had relation to the price of wheat? And what we set out to achieve, and what the flour millers claim has been achieved, is that the price of flour is now fixed in accordance with that formula.

Mr. Davin

The Minister is not going to brush me aside with that kind of silly explanation. That is no answer to my straight question. Does the Minister contend that he was unable to act on the report of that commission because he had not the powers to do so under the 1932 Act?

Mr. Lemass

Yes, certainly.

Mr. Davin

If that is the Minister's contention, can we have an assurance now that he has all the powers required to deal with a situation like that under the existing Bill?

Mr. Lemass

I did not agree with the recommendation.

Mr. Davin

You did not agree with the report of the commission set up by yourself after they had taken evidence on oath and examined the books and accounts of the flour millers?

Mr. Lemass

I accepted fully their account of the facts, but they made a recommendation outside the scope of their powers for dealing with the situation—a recommendation that certain flour millers should be taxed and others subsidised—with which I disagreed and with which, I think, most Parties in this House expressed disagreement also.

Mr. Davin

I want to know whether the Minister subsequently got information from some other source which disproved the report made by the commission——

Mr. Lemass

I do not know.

Mr. Davin

——namely that the flour millers were making profits at the rate of £150,000 per year in excess of what was regarded by his own commission as reasonable.

Mr. Lemass

They did not report that.

Mr. Davin

They did.

Mr. Lemass

They did not. The Deputy can quote the report if he thinks I am wrong. They made no such report.

Mr. Davin

That is the first time the Minister denied it.

Mr. Lemass

I denied it every time it was said to-night until I was accused by the Chair of interrupting too often.

Mr. Davin

You did not deny it when Deputy Norton suggested that that was the position.

Mr. Lemass

I said that nothing to that effect appears in the Prices Commission's report.

Mr. Davin

Assuming such a position exists now, or will exist in the future, or that a future report could be justified, is the Minister now satisfied that he has power under the Bill to deal with a situation of that kind, and if he has, will he have the courage to face up to it and deal with it in the interests of the community? No small body of people in this country like the flour millers have a right to rob the community in the way the Prices Commission have suggested they are doing. I do not care if I am called a Socialist by Deputy Dillon or anybody else; I prefer the socialism which stands for the control of a key industry like flour milling rather than to allow a small number of individuals to rob the community.

Mr. Morrissey

You helped the Government to tax wheat.

Mr. Lemass

There is no tax on wheat.

Mr. Morrissey

There was.

Mr. Davin

The Labour Party believes in the policy of guaranteed prices to the agricultural community for wheat, beet, and every other article of agricultural production. It does not naturally follow that because we support the policy of guaranteed agricultural prices we are going to allow the middleman to rob the community. If it can be proved, as it has apparently been proved in this case, that the flour millers have been taking advantage of that situation, it is the duty of the Minister under this Bill, or some other powers which he will take with the leave of the majority of the House, to face up to that situation, and, if necessary, take control of a key industry of that kind.

Mr. Lemass

Does the Deputy understand what that involves?

Mr. Davin

I do.

Mr. Lemass

The rationalisation of the industry.

Mr. Davin

The Minister will probably suggest that it is a revolutionary action to take.

Mr. Lemass

No; it is very conservative.

Mr. Davin

I think the community have to be protected. The Minister suggested in a cross-talk with Deputy Norton that wages here had some bearing upon the increased price of flour compared with the price paid in Great Britain. Would the Minister say what additional employment the flour millers of this country, who have got a monopoly here, have provided in their flour mills since they got the monopoly and what is the percentage increase which they have given to their workers as compared with the increased price of flour and see what the workers got out of it?

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy misunderstood the reference. We were talking about bread, not flour.

Mr. Davin

The Minister was trying to prevent Deputy Norton from saying things that he did not like. That is what I understood to be the meaning of the interruption at one period. Deputy Dillon and Deputy O'Sullivan criticised, and they are rightly entitled to criticise, the control of prices policy supposed to be carried out by the Government. While they criticised in a very effective way on many occasions the administration of the existing Act, they refused to put any alternative for the purpose of controlling prices or preventing profiteering. The solution of this whole problem, in the opinion of Deputy Dillon, is free trade. What he seeks is fair competition.

Mr. Dillon

What is your solution?

Mr. Davin

I say that the Fine Gael Party, so far as I know, supported the policy of limited protection. If we are going to give protection to industrialists to establish industries that can be established in this country, we must have some machinery either under a Bill of this kind or some more effective machinery to control the prices of the articles which they manufacture and sell. That applies to the clothing trade. I agree that there is profiteering, and, I understand, a considerable amount of profiteering going on in the clothing industry. The Minister should know more about that than Deputy Dillon, who is supposed to know more than anybody in this House about everything. Deputy Dillon says he knows more than anybody in the House about flour.

Mr. Dillon

Bacon.

Mr. Davin

He suggested that he knew more than the Minister about flour milling, but he is afraid to face his flour-milling friends by saying that he is in favour of control of prices. I was present at an election meeting in 1932 in a town in my constituency when a very prominent man in the flour-milling industry presided at what was then a Cumann na nGaedheal election platform. In this town, where he was giving a fair share of employment to workers—and he is a good employer, I admit—he said that if the Cosgrave Party was defeated in the election he would have to sit down and very carefully and calmly, after the result had been announced, consider whether he would not close down his flour mills. I invite the Fine Gael Party, and Deputy Dillon in particular, to find out where that famous flour miller was in the last general election in that constituency. He would not dream, I understand, of being seen near a Fine Gael platform. He had found other friends in the Fianna Fáil Party, because they had given him this protection which enabled him to make higher profits under this protection scheme for the flour millers than Fine Gael ever did or would ever dream of doing. He would not go out and be seen near a Fine Gael platform during the last election. If I am correctly informed, and I have not very bad information, he gave a decent subscription to the Party to whom he gave his vote at the last election.

Mr. Dillon

As Deputy Dowdall said, he would be a mean swine if he did not.

Mr. Lemass

You will find he had a saver on the second horse.

Mr. Morrissey

The Labour Party.

Mr. Davin

He might back Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael each way, but he would not back the Labour Party even for a place. The Minister in his speech wanted to make it appear that there is no unusual increase in the cost of living as compared with the cost of living across the Border or in Great Britain. Is he aware that the price of bacon here—not first-class bacon either —is 1/8¼ per lb. as compared with ? in Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Mr. Lemass

That is not correct.

Mr. Davin

I am assured that that is the present price.

Mr. Lemass

If the Deputy will look at the current issue of The Grocer he will see the price there.

Mr. Davin

Is the Minister aware that the price of cheese here is something like ¼ as compared with 10d. in Northern Ireland and Great Britain? Would the Minister admit that there is profiteering here in the prices charged for vegetables to the poor of Dublin and the other big cities? Cabbage has been sold to my own knowledge in parts of the City of Dublin in the past few weeks at the rate of 6d. per head. Will the Minister find out what the farmers of County Dublin are getting for that in the market? It would not require the services of very many people to supply information of that kind to the Minister. I wonder would he even go so far as to say that the farmers were getting a penny per head for cabbage while the consumers in the city are being charged 6d. per head? Is there anything like profiteering carried on in that instance? If the Minister knows anything—and he knows a fair share; he will not admit all he knows—he knows that profiteering has been carried on on a huge scale in this country, particularly in the cities and in the provincial towns. Although he has certain powers which he could have used effectively if he liked, he has not used these powers to eliminate profiteering wherever it is apparent. If he is going to use this Bill in the same way as he used the previous Act, I agree with Deputy Dillon that this Bill is a farce. The last Act was entitled to be called a farce because it was administered in a farcical manner.

Mr. Dillon

I told you that five years ago.

Mr. Davin

You proved yourself to be a prophet there all right.

Mr. Dillon

You will learn as time goes on that I am a prophet in many things.

Mr. Davin

You are not a prophet in everything. You were sitting over here a couple of years ago and now you are over there. You might be over on the Government Benches yet. You have been changing not only your seat but your mind.

Mr. Dillon

Coming events cast their shadows before. You will be over here yet.

Mr. Davin

I agree with the Minister in cutting down the number of proposed members of the commission. I should like to hear from him whether any of the members of the Prices Commission are going to be full-time members or whether the chairman is going to be a full-time chairman.

Mr. Lemass

The chairman almost certainly, and possibly the other members.

Mr. Davin

I am delighted to hear that. So far as I am personally concerned, so long as you get the best men that can be found in the country, I do not care how high their salaries may be because if they do their duty they will save for the people a thousand times more than the amount of their salaries. I happen to have the acquaintance of the individual who has been acting as part-time chairman. I regret that he has not been acting in a full-time capacity because I am sure that if the commission had had the advantage of his wonderful experience and brains in a full-time capacity, the activities of the commission would have been much more fruitful during the past five years. I hope the Minister will search the country, from one end to the other, to find the ablest and the brainiest men that can be found and I hope he will advise the Minister for Finance to pay them good salaries for doing the work that requires to be done and done as quickly as it can be got in hands.

Whatever we may think about the activities of the Prices Commission with the limited powers at their disposal and with the limited time which they had to devote to this work, I have no hope whatever that prices are going to be controlled or that profiteering will be eliminated by the policy advocated by Deputy Dillon in this House. Deputy Dillon as I say, even though he knows he is expressing views that are not in agreement with the views of members of his Party, will continue as long as he can, to advocate free trade and to ignore the world-wide fact that every country is trying to carry on and survive under a policy of protection and tariffs. If Deputy Dillon would come to the House with information that those big countries were prepared to go back to a policy of limited free trade, one might be inclined to sit down seriously to consider the consequences of a policy of that kind, but with the world in the condition in which we now find it, there is no alternative to protecting ourselves against the dumping of commodities—articles that can be dumped here and in other small countries under a free trade policy. If, however, we are to assist in maintaining existing industries under a policy of protection, and if we are going to give protection to the capitalist who is prepared to put his money into industry, it is the duty of every man to see that the tariffs are not availed of for the purpose of fleecing the community.

Mr. Dowdall

I rise to make a personal explanation on a statement which has been quoted against me on two or three occasions by Deputy Dillon and Deputy McGilligan. These Deputies have referred to a statement which I made on a certain occasion at a meeting in Cork, of the Chamber of Commerce there. What they have said is partly true, but they do not quote the whole of the statement which I made, and I should like it to go down now definitely on the records so that I shall not be misrepresented in the same manner in future. What I said on that occasion was in reply to a statement by the President of the Chamber of Commerce that he hoped that the manufacturers would not take advantage of the tariffs to charge excessive prices or to give inferior quality. I simply said in reply to that that he was expressing only a pious hope, that that was all it was, and that, human nature being what it was, people would like to make as much as they could, would try to make as much as they could, and that I, in their position, would probably do the same. As a matter of fact, we have not done so. We could have done so to a much greater extent than we have. However, I added—and this is the point I wish to be borne in mind— that competition would settle that. Deputy Dillon, towards the end of his own speech, referred to competition as one of the remedies for profiteering. I said on that occasion that competition would settle that without any Government regulations or legislation. That was not quoted either by Deputy Dillon or by Deputy McGilligan on previous occasions, and they put a wrong complexion altogether on what I stated. There was another report of a statement by me which Deputy Dillon repeated and in which it was alleged that I said that certain people who did not support the present Government were swine. I sometimes do use rather bad language and probably I said something like that, but what I said really was that those industrialists who were taking advantage of Government legislation to make excessive profits and who do not support that Government——

Mr. Morrissey

They do not share the spoils.

Mr. Dowdall

I might have called them something like that. That is my explanation of the circumstances under which the statement was made. Deputy Dillon assumes a whole lot of hypotheses and then tells us what is going to happen. He said that if there was going to be 100 per cent. tariff on certain commodities, we would soon arrive at Socialism in this country. Nobody intends to put a tariff of 100 per cent. on anything, but it is the policy of this Government, as set forth at all the elections, to encourage the industrial arm of this country and anything that is necessary to make that policy effective will be done.

Mr. Lemass

On a point of order, I suggest that it might help to shorten the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill if you were to give some indication to Deputies of the distance they can wander from the measure itself in their speeches.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Chair finds that Deputies are wandering unduly beyond the bounds of order the Chair pulls them up. The Bill deals with the control of prices. Prices are certainly affected by many things to which Deputies have referred, and discussion of the necessity for a Control of Prices Bill may raise issues which do not come directly within the terms of this Bill.

Mr. Bennett

I am glad to say that one thing which the introduction of this Bill has brought about is the practical unanimity with which every speaker, so far, has admitted that the present prices need reducing. So far, we have not had a Deputy on any side getting up and saying that the price of commodities is not too high. The Minister in his opening speech, I suppose in order to get himself out of his present difficulty, referred a good deal to the past, and to what might have been done or ought to have been done or was intended to be done in the previous ten years. Then, having departed from that, he said that they were the first to bring in any attempt to control prices; that in this country, except in war times, there was never any attempt made, previous to the advent of Fianna Fáil, to control prices.

Mr. Lemass

I did not say that.

Mr. Bennett

If the Minister did not say that I withdraw it, but that is the way I interpreted it.

Mr. Lemass

An attempt was made in 1923 also.

Mr. Bennett

In regard to that, whether the Minister said it or not, I should like to say that, except in war time, no such prices ever existed in this country as were charged in the last five years, and the cause is not altogether the fault of the manufacturers or the retailers. The Minister himself, in explaining the Bill, came to the kernel, the root cause of all that the people have been suffering through increased prices in the last five years. Elaborating the extra powers that should be given to the commission in this amending Bill, I was particularly struck by one sentence of the Minister when he said that one increased power to be given to them was power to recommend a diminution—I think that was the word—or certainly a variation of the duties on imports.

The Minister thinks and believes it is necessary to give the commission powers to recommend a variation—I think he said a diminution—in the existing duties on imports. In that one sentence he came to the root cause of the trouble. It is the only sentence that is any use in this Bill, and the one thing that might be adopted as a solution of the present difficulty in which people find themselves on account of the big prices charged for commodities. The Minister, in answering an interrupter a moment ago, said there was no duty on wheat. He was correct but unfair—a man can be correct and unfair—when he said there was no duty on wheat. Everybody knows there is no duty on wheat. The Ministry, instead of paying the subsidy themselves, took it off the Exchequer and asked the millers to collect it. Of course the millers are collecting it and charging it to the consumers. The Minister was correct and unfair.

Mr. Lemass

How are the millers collecting it?

Mr. Bennett

If the Minister's intelligence is not sufficient to solve that conundrum I am not going to elucidate it for him. Certainly the consumers are paying it.

Mr. Lemass

Does the Deputy think the price of Irish wheat is too high?

Mr. Bennett

If the Minister is trying to draw me into an argument about the temporary position of the world's wheat market I am not going to enter into it now. If the Minister wants to enter into that argument on another occasion I will take him up. The argument may suit him at the moment, but it did not suit him during the last five years, and he knows it did not suit him.

Mr. Lemass

Does the Deputy think the price of butter too high?

Mr. Bennett

I do not, but I think that some solution might be found to increase the price of butter to the people who produce it, but without mulcting the consumer to the extent that he has been mulcted.

Mr. Lemass

What is the Deputy's suggestion?

Mr. Bennett

In the proper time and place I will give the Minister may suggestion.

Mr. Lemass

You were promising them 6d. a gallon during the election.

Mr. O'Leary

No; it was 5d., and we will keep our word, too.

Mr. Lemass

I think Deputy Bennett went up to 6d.

Mr. Bennett

We never got as high as that. I think it was some of the Minister's supporters, in attempting to compete with Deputy Bennett, who suggested that it might be 6d.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think the less the Ministry say about figures the better. They are good at adding on the noughts.

Mr. Bennett

If there was any good to be got out of a Control of Prices Bill we ought to have reaped some benefit out of the Bill of two or three years ago. I do not say it could have created perfection in a month or two, or in a year or two, or even in three of four years, but we ought to have reaped some benefit. If the Minister or any member of the Fianna Fáil Party in the Dáil can get up in this House and convince me that the general public reaped one atom of benefit out of the Bill which we are amending, I will send the Minister a bouquet of roses and I will pay the postage on it. I did not get up to delay the House by giving an elaboration of the increased cost of various articles, as Deputy Davin rightly did. I do not want to go over the ground which Deputy Davin has already covered. He alluded to several items the cost of which is infinitely more here than it is in a neighbouring country, or in the neighbouring part of this country, which unfortunately at the present moment—or maybe fortunately for themselves—is not under the Fianna Fáil Government. I was recently in the North, and I had an opportunity to compare the price of the common daily articles which I myself produce and which of necessity every unfortunate consumer in this country must buy. I found that in every individual case the price was far below that which the unfortunate purchasers in this part of the State have to pay.

Mr. Lemass

What were the articles? Butter? Eggs? Milk?

Mr. Bennett

And sugar.

Mr. Lemass

Butter, eggs, milk and sugar?

Mr. Bennett

Bacon, bread——

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy was talking about dairy produce.

Mr. Bennett

I am talking about common articles of daily necessity— bread, bacon, sugar, butter, a suit of clothes, boots——

Mr. Lemass

Those are not dairy produce.

Mr. Bennett

I am referring to the common articles which the people in this country have to buy. There was not a thing which we eat or use in any way that was not cheaper up in the Black North than it is here in the free and glorious Free State. I am glad that the Bill has had this benefit—that is what I rose to say— that it has drawn from almost every Deputy who has spoken in this House an admission that some solution of the unfortunate position of the consumers in this country must be found. It is not going to be found in this Bill. Even if I rouse the ire of some Deputy like Deputy Davin, or some Deputy on the Fianna Fáil Benches, or the Deputy who is going to follow me, I will say that the one solution is on the lines of the admission by the Minister himself when he put into this Bill a clause empowering the commission to recommend a diminution of the import duties. It is in the elaboration of that idea that you are going to find a solution. I do not care if I am called a dyed-in-the-wool free trader as nearly a dyed-in-the-wool free trader as any Deputy in this House. If any Deputy has realised the blessings and benefits of a high protective policy I give him all the glory he finds in it, but I for one—and I believe I am followed by the great bulk of the consumers in this country—believe that the import duties in this country are far too high, and that where they are too high, which is in numerous instances, advantage is taken by the manufacturers to reap the full benefit which the law gives them in regard to duty. The price of nearly every article which is consumed or used in this State is far beyond what in reason it ought to be. I am not going to deny that here and there in the State there may be a little profiteering. There always has been some little profiteering, but if we are the over-shopped people in this State that the returns recently issued show us to be, if we have a shop for every 60 or 70 people, then surely there must exist enough retailers competing amongst themselves to keep down prices.

Mr. Lemass

To keep up prices. The commission said the multiplicity of shops was keeping up prices.

Mr. Bennett

If some retailers would take a tip from me, they would reduce prices to the minimum and spend enough in advertising and then they would do a glorious business.

Mr. Lemass

The retailer would go out of business; he would go smash.

Mr. Bennett

If there is profiteering, a retailer could afford to sell lower than the rest. If there is one honest trader in this country competing against his brethren and he sells at a reasonable profit, then, if other retailers are profiteering, he is going to collar their business, because the people will purchase from him. I do not believe there is profiteering in this State to the extent that is reported. Certainly it is not the root cause of the evils we are trying to cure. Any attempt to legislate along that line is not going to cure the trouble. If there is a cure to be found for this vile evil that the people are suffering from since the advent of the Fianna Fáil Government, it must be along the line of a diminution or a variation of the highly excessive duties that are charged on every commodity coming into this State.

Mr. Corry

We have heard a lot of charges made here to-night, particularly in connection with the price of flour and the price of bread. The principal argument used by Deputy Dillon seems to be that our flour millers were profiteering, that everybody was profiteering, and if flour was imported from the foreigner the same as previously, everything would be right. Free trade. I would like to take Deputies back to 1925, when the price of imported wheat was 12/- per cwt., or 30/- a barrel, just the same as the price of imported wheat to-day. At that period our flour millers were working two and a half days a week and, if we take the report of the Tribunal on Prices for 1927, the price of flour at that time was 53/6. That is what we were then paying John Bull for flour. We did not hear any noise about profiteering then; it is not profiteering when it is done across the water. The price of bread at that time was 1/- per 4-lb. loaf, the same as it is to-day.

We are told that if we get back to that condition of things, if we throw our mill workers out on the roadside and let the mills work two or three days a week, the same as the Midleton Mills were working when we took over, or if they are allowed to close down altogether, the same as the Clondulane mills were, then, according to Deputy Dillon, everything in the garden will be lovely. I do not know whether there is profiteering in the price of wheat or flour. On reading the commission's report, I find that they ascribe a difference of ½d. per 4-lb. loaf to the difference in wages and output between the bakers here in Dublin and in Belfast. That is mentioned on page 28 of the tribunal's report for 1927. The information I have got shows that an assistant baker in Cork City bakes 25 per cent. less and is paid 20 per cent. more than a foreman baker in the City of London. I wonder whether that item will be referred to by Deputy Davin or Deputy Norton? Facts are facts and sometimes they are rather stubborn things. I also learned that the ordinary workers in flour mills in Cork are paid from 4/- to 6/- a week more than those engaged on similar work in Liverpool. Perhaps Deputy Davin and Deputy Norton will inquire into those facts.

Deputy Dillon also referred to home-grown wheat. He is very fond of making a noise about home-grown wheat. The price of imported wheat is 30/- and the Government guarantee the price of Irish wheat at 26/6. The organised farmers in this country have succeeded in forcing that price up to 30/6, sixpence more than the imported article. If the Irish farmer can get a market here worth between £2,500,000 and £3,000,000 a year for stuff that we previously bought from the foreigner, then he is entitled to it and there will be no apology from those benches for giving it to him, not even to Deputy Dillon. Even some Deputies on the opposite benches think that these prices should be higher. There are some Deputies over there who do not grow much wheat themselves, but they attend meetings and they say the farmers should have got more than 30/6. These are the facts. We have Deputy Dillon getting up here and making a general attack on everybody. He goes back to 1932 and quotes or misquotes a speech made by Deputy Dowdall. Apparently Deputy Dillon was not above following out the supposed advice that Deputy Dowdall is alleged to have given him. Deputy Dillon spoke of pulling every feather out of the tail of the Labour Deputies a while ago. On that matter and on all this profiteering business, I suggest that Deputy Dillon was not satisfied with pulling a feather out of the tail. He took the whole of the tail in the profit-making business. I have in my hand the Roscommon Herald of last Saturday and, as regards prices, that paper tells me that the firm of Monica Duff and Company of Ballaghaderreen——

An Ceann Comhairle

Which has nothing to do with this Bill.

Mr. Corry

The firm of Monica Duff and Company, of which Deputy Dillon is manager——

An Ceann Comhairle

I think the Deputy heard the Chair. That matter has nothing to do with this debate.

Mr. Corry

Well, considering that Deputy Dillon made personal attacks on everybody else, he deserves it. Still and all we will let him go. We must be generous. When you compare the position and see where the default lies, where is the use of those people over there on the Fine Gael Benches shouting free trade arguments? Let us take the actual position in regard to flour in 1926 and the position to-day. Take the number who are employed in our flour mills to-day and with that compare the position that obtained in 1926 and in 1932 in our flour mills. It appears there is no question of profiteering so long as it is the foreigner who profiteers. Then it does not matter. But we have the figures of those prices, and I invite Deputies to read and compare them. Let them get the tribunal report of 1927. Let them get the price of imported flour in 1926 and compare it with the price here, and see exactly where is the change. The price of imported wheat at that time was the self-same as it is to-day. The price of baker's flour at present is 53/6. The price of baker's flour in 1927 was 53/6. So that, apparently, flour is costing the same when it is turned out by Irish millers as when it was turned out by foreigners. The price of the 4-lb. loaf delivered then was 1/-.

Mr. Brodrick

The Deputy gave us all that before.

Mr. Corry

Apparently some of the heads over there are so thick that it requires a mallet to drive any facts into them.

Mr. Brodrick

Give us something new.

Mr. Corry

Well, let the Deputy swallow that for the present. Now, I do not agree with profiteering. I agree with a lot of what Deputy Dowdall said. There is a temptation apparently in new industries to profiteer. It is undoubtedly a temptation that will take careful watching. These matters will have to be watched. I will just give one instance of that sort of thing. A fortnight ago, at the South Cork Board of Assistance, we got three tenders for beef and mutton. We decided the prices were too high and that we would re-advertise. We did re-advertise, and at the following meeting we had fresh tenders. In the second tenders the price of beef was reduced by 11/- a cwt., and the price of mutton by 8/- a cwt.

Mr. Daniel Morrissey

What were the prices?

Mr. Corry

I could not at the moment tell you, but I can give you these facts to go on with. I will send the figures of the new tenders to the Deputy later.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I would like to see the quality of the meat supplied to the inmates at that price.

Mr. Corry

The Deputy does not even know the price, and he tells us he would like to see the quality that was supplied at that price.

Mr. Brodrick

At all events, it was 11/- a cwt. less than the previous tender.

Mr. Corry

Yes, and 8/- a cwt. less for mutton. That was the difference in two tenders within a week.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Was it the same quality?

Mr. Corry

Certainly: there is a veterinary surgeon there to examine the quality of beef and mutton, and I may tell Deputy Morrissey that his get-rich-quick butchers in Tipperary would not get away with much at the Cork Board of Health. That is one instance of attempted profiteering if you like.

Mr. Brodrick

It might be Roscrea.

Mr. Corry

That is why I maintain that a Bill like this is absolutely necessary and it is a Bill that should be operated quickly. The Bill before the House, in my opinion, is not harsh enough. A Bill of this class should be worked with penalties. It should be worked very tightly by penalties and there should be gaol sentences for gross profiteering. This thing has got to be stopped and there must be no hesitation about stopping it. We have had the dictum used here to-night that the whole cause of high prices is the fact that we are working our own industries. That is a dictum that will not bear examination in view of the figures I have given here, figures that are borne out by the tribunal report. Portion of the higher price as compared with the cost in England is, apparently, due to the higher cost of labour. The tribunal report of 1927 shows that there is a difference in the turnout of the bakers here as compared with Belfast of ½d. per 4 lb. loaf. That is ½d. that should be reduced if the bakers here were paid the same wages as the bakers in Belfast.

Mr. Larkin

If they were paid less would it not be better still?

Mr. D. Morrissey

Hear, hear!

Mr. Corry

I do not believe in cutting down. I believe in fair play. When we hear so much talk about the miserable wage paid here, we must certainly consider the statements like that contained in the tribunal report. Surely there is nothing that should prevent a baker in this part of Ireland from turning out as many loaves of bread as are turned out in every other part of the world. We claim that Irishmen are as good workmen as anyone else, and what is wrong with them that it should cost ½d. more to produce a 4lb. loaf? That is what I want to know. According to individual master bakers in Dublin, output varies from 13½ to 14 sacks per man per week in Dublin, while in Belfast it was from 20 to 24 sacks. That is nearly double.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Under the same conditions?

Mr. Corry

Apparently, and at a lower wage than the wage paid bakers here. If it is stated the millers are profiteering, let the bakers give us a day's work for a day's wages. Then we would be able to reduce the price of bread. Let them all give a little.

Mr. Larkin

If the bakers worked for nothing it would be cheaper still.

Mr. Corry

I would not ask any man to work for nothing. I never did and I never will. The point is that there is nothing to prevent the bakers in Dublin doing the same day's work as bakers in other places. Why should they not?

Mr. Larkin

Because they come from Cork.

Mr. Corry

No. As a matter of fact, when I turn to the position in Cork I find that the bakers there turn out more bread than the Dublin bakers. That might be the reason so many Cork bakers are coming to Dublin, because they are better workers. To my mind that is the explanation of the position. With regard to flour, let us examine what occurred here. Our charge against the Fine Gael Party, that was the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, is that they are not in earnest in regard to starting Irish industries, that they had no intention of starting Irish industries; that their anxiety was to kill whatever industries we had. We had an old sinner and a young convert speaking this evening. Deputy Bennett is an old sinner in this matter, and an old Cumann na nGaedheal man, and the new convert is Deputy Dillon, both of them preaching the same thing.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Acting on the excellent advice given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, may I ask if this is in order? I am only following the advice given by the Minister.

An Ceann Comhairle

On the policy of the People's Government seven years ago.

Mr. D. Morrissey

As the Deputy has not read the Bill I know that it is difficult for him to make a speech on it.

Mr. Corry

I maintain that our statements regarding the policy of the Opposition in the past have been fully borne out by their statement of policy here to-night, and the results of that policy. In 1932 we found our flour mills closed down or nearly finished off. Now we have got them in full working order, and working overtime. The worst that can be said of them is that they are no bigger thieves than the English firms that were here before. Granted that they are profiteering, that they are doing everything that has been stated, and robbing us right, left and centre, they are no bigger thieves than the English ones who were fleecing us before. When the price of foreign wheat was 30/- a barrel they were charging 53/6 in Ireland for their flour. When I hear Deputies on the opposite benches speaking about the future of the industrial revival—God save us—I think it would be well if they were to gag Deputy Dillon or to transfer him from the Party, if they are going to continue to claim, that they stand for Irish industrial revival. They should do the same thing with Deputy Bennett. I am quite frank about it. I am heartily of the same opinion as Deputy Dowdall, that the temptation to overcharge and to profiteer in industries is there, and that that is a position which must be watched. It is also a position which should not prevent us getting our industries going, so as to get employment for our own people as against the policy of Deputy Dillon, that no matter a hang what was paid the foreigner, so long as it was foreign stuff, it was all right. That was the policy preached by Deputy Dillon this evening. While Deputy Dillon attacked profiteers, he went then and took shelter by saying that he did not know the regulations when caught profiteering himself.

Mr. Brennan

There are times when Deputy Corry is interesting. I am afraid he has not been interesting to-night.

Mr. T. Kelly

Very much so.

Mr. Brennan

Not a bit.

Mr. Kelly

Oh, yes.

Mr. Brennan

His choice was a very bad one. When the Deputy chose to tell the prices charged for flour in 1926 and 1927, and represented these prices as thieving prices charged by people on the other side of the Channel, he also told us that the millers in this country were only able to keep the mills working two and a-half days a week.

Mr. Corry

That is right.

Mr. Brennan

That statement will not stand examination. Will the Deputy not agree that if people in Liverpool charged thieving prices in 1927 the Irish flour mills ought to be able to live?

Mr. Lemass

With free competition.

Mr. Brennan

Irrespective of free competition, Deputy Corry says we were paying an outrageous price for foreign flour then.

Mr. Lemass

There was no free competition. There was an organisation known as the Millers' Mutual Organisation which fixed prices.

Mr. Brennan

Irrespective of fixed prices, the Irish millers ought to have been able to live if the English millers were charging extraordinarily high prices for flour here.

Mr. Lemass

May I remind the Deputy that the fact was, that the Irish millers were to operate 50 per cent. of their capacity under this arrangement, on condition that they would charge the same prices.

Mr. Brennan

On condition that they were subservient to the others. Why were they?

Mr. Lemass

Because they were refused protection.

Mr. Brennan

Was it not their own fault to do it? That was the period at which the Irish flour millers made an application for a tariff because, as they stated in their application, flour was being dumped here at uneconomic prices.

Mr. Corry

The Deputy said they were profiteering.

Mr. Brennan

I am not saying any such thing. The Deputy said that British millers were then fleecing the Irish people and that it was all right to fleece them.

They said that if they did not get a tariff they could not compete, as flour milling here was uneconomic. These are the facts. I agree with Deputy Corish and with the Labour Party and with everyone else that this Bill is a necessity, as the people are being fleeced. Is the Bill able to deal with the position? That is the only question. Why has the cost of living gone up? Everyone knows the reason perfectly well. It is because of the duties, the restrictions, the bounties, the subsidies, and all that kind of thing—because as far, as the policy of the Government is concerned, it has been a haphazard policy, one that was never thought out. Deputy Corry and the Minister know that well. Then, we have this smoke-screen presented to the House. It is very easy to be misled by this Bill. A controller is mentioned in a number of sections, but I cannot find his duties defined anywhere in the Bill.

Mr. Lemass

They are set out in detail in Part IV.

Mr. Brennan

The commission has the right to make inquiry into the duties and restrictions and to report. From that, we might reasonably expect that something would be done and that there might be a reduction in the number of restrictions. We might be lulled to sleep by that provision, but we find by Section 32 that the Minister is not to make a price Order or price restriction-of-profits order unless he has received from the commission a recommendation to make such Order. In making such Order, the Minister shall not be obliged to give effect to the terms, or any of them, of the recommendation. We have a commission set up and we have a controller whose duties are not defined. We have this expensive machinery and this smoke-screen, but, according to another provision in the Bill, the Minister need not publish any part of the commission's recommendation and need not act on anything the commission recommend. He can make a price Order without regard to the findings of the commission.

Mr. Lemass

That did arise in the case of the flour report. I did not accept their recommendation.

Mr. Brennan

That was not on the question of price. You did not accept their recommendation with regard to the subsidising of certain mills. After all we have heard from Deputy Corry and Deputy Dowdall, one would think that this Bill would reduce prices and control excessive profits. The Minister, however, allows himself this way out. Deputy O'Sullivan referred to certain coincidences just before the election. The Minister made an order reducing the price of bread at a time when the commission was finding that bread should be dearer because of the price of flour. In Section 32, the Minister is giving himself liberty to determine that prices should come down if it suits the political situation. He can make, not an election promise, but an election order. It is very interesting to hear Deputy Dowdall endeavour to explain away the words he used at the meeting of Cork Chamber of Commerce. I hope everybody is convinced that he did not intend to make undue profits out of the tariffs, but I am afraid it would take a lot to convince us of that. Deputy Corry is inclined to agree with Deputy Dowdall, although Deputy Dowdall told us nothing except that if certain people were making undue profits out of tariffs, they should at least contribute to the Government funds.

Mr. Lemass

That is not what Deputy Dillon quoted.

Mr. Brennan

The Minister was out of the House when this altercation arose.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy should quote Deputy Dowdall's words.

Mr. Brennan

The matter was referred to by Deputy Dowdall himself.

Mr. Lemass

Not in these words.

Mr. Morrissey

Would the Minister give us his words?

Mr. Brennan

His words were very much worse than that because he made reference to "swine" and admitted he was in the habit of doing things like that. It does not serve any purpose for people like Deputy Corry to charge another Irishman with endeavouring to kill Irish industry. We are all out to do what we can for Irish industry. I should like to help the Minister in connection with this matter, but I do not think we can devise machinery to deal with it. Government policy is too much involved in restrictions, quotas, tariffs, bounties and subsidies, which have forced up the cost of living and forced down the standard of living.

Mr. Lemass

We shall deal with that in the next debate.

Mr. Brennan

You can deal with it any time you like. That is the basis of the whole situation. I wish the Minister luck with this Bill. It will not get him anywhere. It is merely a smoke-screen and a price of bluff but, such as it is, we had better put up with it.

Mr. Brasier

The Finance Act of 1932 came rather as a shock to this House, considering the large number of tariffs imposed upon various new articles. Side by side with that Bill, however, was a Control of Prices Bill, which led certain Deputies to believe that there would be a reasonable measure of control over any increases of price. I was not one of those who thought that prices would not advance with the tariffs. I said at that time that the manufacturer would probably raise the price to the full amount of the tariff. I regret to say that that has happened and that the Control of Prices has not had the effect which was anticipated. Year after year since then, every Finance Act has increased the duties on various articles. No migrant, man or woman, who has gone from this country but has brought back the information that the cost of living in England is lower than it is in this country. Therefore, we may assume that the Control of Prices Act did not provide an effective restriction on the manufacturers of this country who were inclined to yield, as Deputy Dowdall said, to temptation and to take undue advantage of the tariffs. That has happened.

With regard to the flour mills alluded to by Deputy Corry, nobody would rejoice more than I at any increase of employment given by these mills. Unfortunately, they have not given the employment anticipated because the greater share of the profits has gone into the mill owners' pockets. While a certain amount of employment may be given, there has not been that measure of employment as a result of the control of the milling industry that was anticipated. This industry is operating in my constituency and we have it from the mill workers that the amount of employment given is most disappointing. The answer as to whether the cost of living has increased or not was given by Deputy Corry who, I am sorry, is not here to bear out what I say. He pointed out that the bakers bake 25 per cent. less and get 25 per cent. more and that the mill workers are paid 5/- a week more than the mill workers in Liverpool. Is not that an effective answer to those who contend that the cost of living has not advanced? It is a definite answer because every increase in the cost of living means an increase in the wages which have to be paid. In fact, it is an absolute indication that wages must go up when the cost of living goes up.

Mr. McGowan

They have not gone up.

Mr. Brasier

They have gone up as far as it is possible to force them and as far as it is possible for the people to bear. The agricultural community are supposed to be the chief producers in this country, but the cost of almost every article connected with agriculture has definitely gone up. Agricultural machinery, manures, feeding stuffs, hardware of every description— all have gone up substantially and we have not received the price we have a right to expect and which the industry which is the chief source of production in this country should demand.

There is one method whereby we can bring about a reduction and that is by having a competition in prices. Whatever the faults of the cattle trade may be—I do not intend to go into that now—we were able to make a living by cattle, but we are not able to make a living by those crops which are supposed to be the special care of Government policy at present. The price of wheat and the very limited output from the land mean that wheat growing is not a paying proposition. The farmers in this country have accepted Government policy. They are acting up to it and have done their best to carry it out, but, even with the bounty, the crop is not a paying crop. Barley and oats pay much better and, therefore, I say that this Bill is a failure. I regret to say that while promises were made with regard to the Prices Commission which gave us reason to expect that it would be an effective instrument in controlling prices, it has failed to carry out what was promised in the Control of Prices Act. The Tariff Commission we had in the time of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government was an effective instrument in deciding what tariff would be effected. It might have had its faults, but there is no question as to its ability to safeguard the honest manufacturer who did his best and who, after expert advice had been secured, got a certain tariff. It certainly shut out men who were not able to manufacture in this country and not able to compete with the prices in England.

Mr. O'Leary

I should like to welcome this Bill but I fear it will not be able to cope with the present situation. The allegation that we are free-traders has been flung across the House at us. I would say that when our Party took over the reins of government here, they set on foot a tariff policy over which we are not in the least ashamed or afraid to stand. I remember 40 years ago when we were all united in the Irish Ireland movement, all that was asked of the people of this country was that they should give a preference to Irish manufacture. I may say that I always went further than that myself, but we must remember that there are people in this country to-day who, in the Government's view, are worth only 24/- a week. How are those people going to buy commodities at their present prices? Many unfortunate men in this country are in need of a pair of boots to-day. I was over in the North of England during the last week in August and I made it my business to look around the shops there. I saw a fine, solid pair of working boots with nails in them marked in a window at 12/11. I suggest that the Labour Deputies in this House should find out what the price of those boots would be in this country. I only regret that I did not buy that pair of boots, pay the tariff and show them in this House to let the people see what is happening in connection with some of the industries established here.

I say that we have no apologies to offer for our policy in connection with Irish industry. The late Government established the Tariff Commission and, when a manufacturer in this country wanted a tariff, he could put in an application to that commission, those who were opposed to it could make their objections and that commission— and I am sure nobody will deny it— reported impartially as to the effects which that tariff would have on the people. Their duty was to find out what it was going to cost the people and what employment would be given as a result of it. Will the Deputies on the Government Benches deny that at that time they said that tariffs would not increase the cost of living? Are they of the same opinion to-day? Will they deny that their own tariff policy is responsible in some measure for the present situation in this country?

The Minister for Industry and Commerce asked Deputy Bennett if he was opposed to paying the increased price for wheat, but, as a matter of fact, according to Deputy Corry, there is no increased price for wheat in this country because the price of foreign wheat is just as high. There was a time when Fianna Fáil members were dishonest enough to use the argument that the price of Irish wheat was responsible for the increased price of flour, but to-day Deputy Corry has tried to throw responsibility for the increased price on the workers and bakers of Cork and Dublin. He has done so, however, only to the extent of ½d. per 4lb. loaf. Anyone reading the Sunday Independent last Sunday could see that the price of the 4 lb. loaf in London on that day was only 9d.; that in the North of Ireland it was 9½d.; and that in the Free State it was 1/-, and probably 1½ or 1/1 in some places, although some people might be too conscientious to charge according to the Government's fixed price. I would ask Deputy Corry if it is not our duty to find out what is responsible—leaving the ½d. out of consideration—for the difference of 2½d. per 4 lb. loaf between the price of bread here and in London.

There was a time when we were told that the Cumann na nGaedheal fund was subsidised by the foreign millers, but in this country to-day we have a gentleman ruling the flour industry, who, as Deputy Dillon pointed out one one occasion, was able to buy his wheat delivered at Liverpool at a certain price, and when he sent what he required to Limerick for delivery there charged 10/- extra. I ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce to reply to that. I should be glad to hear that my statement is incorrect because I do not want to make incorrect statements in this House, or statements over which I would not be prepared to stand. Neither do I want to take any advantage of the present situation, but there is no doubt that things in this country have reached a terrible state.

The people are being robbed right, left and centre, and those on the Government Benches know that as well as I do. Deputy Dowdall, I am sure, is a very conscientious man and so am I, but when temptation is put before one, then, as Deputy Dowdall says, human nature is human nature. The Minister for Finance is also a conscientious man, and I ask him what would he do if he were in the position of one of those manufacturers. I think myself that it would be a tight fit and that the temptation would be too much. What I maintain is that the Government should not put anybody in that position. I am speaking for the poorer people in the country who have only very small allowances and are unable to meet the increased cost of living. I welcome the Bill, and hope it will go some distance to meet the present situation though I have some doubts about that. Still I am prepared to give it a fair chance.

Captain Giles

I feel honoured at being able to stand in an Irish Parliament to-day, and as a newcomer I ask this Assembly to consider this question of the high cost of living. I come from a county which cannot claim to be an industrial county. I come from the County Meath, which is noted for its agriculture, and I feel privileged at being able to speak here on this question of the high cost of living. It is perhaps the most important question that we will be called upon to consider during this session of the Dáil. We heard a great deal from Deputy Corry as to all that had been done by the Government in connection with industrial development. To my mind this policy of industrial development has been brought too far altogether. In my opinion, the only sound policy for this country is one of selective tariffs. The industrial policy of this Government is not, I hold, a sound one. It has led to want and beggary amongst the people of my county. To-day they are in the unhappy position that they are not able to have bacon for their dinner. They have to eat dry bread, and that in the county that used to be one of the most prosperous in Ireland.

We hear a lot about the revival of the flour-milling industry. I come from a county where we have nine derelict flour mills between the town of Trim and the town of Drogheda. You have one every three miles along the River Boyne. The Minister for Industry and Commerce never came down there to re-start one of those mills. The Minister will have the privilege of opening a factory in the town of Trim next week. I would invite him to take a walk along the River Boyne, starting at the town of Trim, so that he may see the beggary and the misery that prevail there. The factory which it is proposed to start there is, to my mind, one that is completely foreign to this country for the reason that it will not be using anything that is produced in this country.

We were told that during the days of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government, nothing was done for industrial development in this country. I maintain that a real, solid foundation for industrial development was laid in those days. It was the Cumann na nGaedheal Government that started the first boot factory and the first boot factory in this country. It was the Cumann na nGaedheal Government also that was responsible for putting into operation the Shannon Scheme, on which all the industrial concerns operating in the country to-day have to depend for their power. Great and lasting foundations for the industrial development of the country were laid in those days. I ask Deputies on all sides of the House seriously to consider the position in the country to-day. The only hope for the country is to make agriculture its strong right arm. Just as the individual has two arms, one stronger than the other, so I hold that Ireland's strong arm, if she is to be prosperous and great, must be her agricultural arm. If it is not, then the other arm must be weak, because this is an agricultural country and if agriculture is not prosperous we can have no hope of starting industries. We must look down to the earth and see what mineral wealth we have. If you do that you will find that you have nothing but the bare soil out of which to make a living.

I suggest that we have gone far enough with this industrial craze. As I have said, the only sound policy for this country is one of selective tariffs. In view of the present position, I think we might ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce to take a holiday for at least six months. If he does not want to do that, I suggest that he should take himself over to the Minister for Agriculture and try to help him out of the mess that he is in. I would also suggest to the Minister for Industry and Commerce that he should have the golden keys with which he was presented during the last couple of years melted down and the proceeds given to the unfortunate people in the country who cannot get work. I hope that what I have said will be clearly understood, because I am one of those who do not believe in mincing his words. I say to the Labour Party that, in my opinion, they have taken an honest step to-day by coming over to this side into the front line trenches. Now that they have come over, I hope they will take off their coats and undo some of the dirty work that they helped to do during the last couple of years.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister to conclude.

Mr. Lemass

This has been the first set debate in the new Dáil, and I hope that it is not indicative of what is in store for us. The debate arose on a Bill for the control of prices, but the majority of the speakers did not even refer to the Bill, and those who did certainly attempted no constructive criticism on it. Instead, we had a rehash of their election speeches, and a patent manoeuvring for political position. I suggest to Deputies that they can do their cross-roads oratory better at the cross-roads than in this House——

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister is a good judge.

Mr. Lemass

——and that, when a measure of this kind is brought forward for consideration, they should give the House the benefit of their considered judgment of its provisions. In other words, that they should act here not so much as the members of a political party trying to secure kudos for that party, but as the representatives of the people in the Council of Deputies. On that basis we would be able to make progress in the perfection of our legislation. On any other basis we will achieve nothing.

The Party opposite think that they have got me in a dilemma on this Bill. They think that I cannot but agree with them that the 1932 Act was ineffective without giving away the case for its amendment, but if I am in a dilemma I think that they are in one also. My dilemma is more apparent than real, while theirs is more real than apparent, because they have got to avoid supporting the Bill, to avoid putting forward any suggestions that would make it more effective in operation, and at the same time keep themselves free to conduct this prices ramp on which they had been engaged for the past six months. They have a rather difficult task before them. Of course, we get wild statements such as we have had to-day from Deputy Dillon of the actual prices now being charged here and a comparison between them and the alleged prices operating on the other side, none of which will bear a moment's examination by anyone conversant with the facts. Statements of that kind, while they may snatch a few votes at an election, are of no value to the House if the aim and purpose of Deputies is to secure that effective legislation is enacted here.

The Bill may be capable of improvement. I am quite prepared to consider any suggestions for its improvement that Deputies may care to make. I submit that Deputies should get rid of this talk about profiteering and of urging that action should be taken to get rid of rising prices unless they are prepared to sit down and put forward some alternative method for dealing with this particular situation. Mind you, this is not a Bill for dealing with rising prices, and Deputies opposite have spoken as if it were a Bill to deal with unfair prices. Rising prices are not necessarily unfair. They are often indicative of progress. The rise in the price of agricultural produce that has taken place since 1934 is something that we deliberately set out to achieve, something that it was essential to secure as a basis for prosperity in this country. Some of the Deputies who have spoken in criticism of this Bill in the House to-day will to-morrow be deploring the prices that the farmer gets for his milk, for his beet and for his meat, and will be urging on the Government that prices should be increased. You cannot increase prices at one end of the scale without doing it at the other. The purpose of the Bill is to see that nobody, in any process of production or distribution, gets an unfair profit. That is what we are legislating for, and it is for the purpose of achieving that that we ask the co-operation of Deputies opposite. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned until to-morrow.