I do not contest, and no one would be so foolish as to contest that the cost of living has increased since 1934. It has definitely. In 1932 and 1933 the cost of living fell. The fall stopped in 1934, and since then there has been quite a substantial rise. The motion, however, contends that the rise in the cost of living is due to Government action. This Government commenced action in March, 1932, and if any evidence is to be produced in support of the contention in the motion, it must be evidence that since 1932 the cost of living has increased in comparison with the period before 1932. I noticed that in the debate on the other Bill Deputies opposite when talking about the cost of living stopped at 1934 "on the road back." It is true they could make the case that there has been, on the basis of a comparison of the figures for this year with 1934, but when they set out to show that the increased cost of living is due to the policy of this Government, then their comparison must be over the whole period that this Government was in office, as against the period before it was elected. Between the year 1931, which was the last year of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government, and the year 1936, the last year for which we have the complete figures, there was no increase shown in the cost-of-living index. The index figures for one year are the same as for the other. It is true that comparison masks the considerable fall and recovery in the intervening period, because between 1931 and 1934 there was a fall, and between 1934 and 1936 there was a recovery.
But in 1936 the cost of living here was not higher than in 1931 when a different Government policy was in operation. One year as against another is a false comparison, because exceptional circumstances might operate one year to raise or depress the cost of living, and it might be only temporary and would not be repeated in subsequent years. Therefore, I think it is a much fairer comparison to take the average for five years before the change of Government and the average for five years afterwards. The average figure of the cost of living prior to 1932 was 163 and for the five years since 1932, 155.
In view of these figures I submit it is difficult to contend that Government policy alone has been responsible for increasing the cost of living. That is the contention in the motion. I am not denying that an increase in the cost of living has taken place. I am not denying that Government policy was in part responsible for it. The truth was, that Government policy was in part designed to produce that increase in the cost of various commodities, the prices of which are taken into account in the cost-of-living index figures, but I say it is utterly false and misleading to endeavour to create in the minds of Deputies the idea that Government policy alone was responsible for an increase in the cost of living. The cost of living is rising, but to the knowledge of Deputies who moved the motion, and of the Leaders of the Party on the opposite benches who framed it, it is rising in every country in the world, and in some is rising, in proportion, more rapidly than here.
Let us take the figures for the various countries. In the Trade Supplement of the London Economist for September 5th, 1937, statistics are available. Deputies can purchase copies of that publication. These show that the cost of living all over the world fell rapidly until 1933. Deputies know that. They know, in fact, that what was called an economic blizzard, a world crisis, was occasioned by that fall in prices, and that world conferences were called by the great States in an effort to get international agreement to raise prices.
It was not until prices began to rise again that the world began to recover from the depression and that commercial activity, was renewed. Between 1933 and 1936, the cost of living in this country rose by 5.9 per cent. That is the increase which has taken place in the cost-of-living index in this country between 1933 and 1936. In the United Kingdom, it rose during the same period by 5 per cent.—a slightly smaller increase but, nevertheless, very similar. In the U.S.A., during the same period, the cost of living rose by 13.2 per cent.; in Germany by 5.5 per cent., in Australia by 5.6 per cent., in Canada by 5 per cent., and in New Zealand by 7 per cent. I could give you the figure for France but it would be misleading. It shows a much higher increase but the currency fluctuations had a lot to do with it. The accuracy of these figures cannot be contested. Deputies will, I assume, take it from me that the London Economist is not a Fianna Fáil organ and that its figures are not prepared for the purpose of making Fianna Fáil propaganda. The rise in the cost of living here between the period when the slump ended until this date was no greater than in other countries. I might, perhaps, have obtained figures for countries the economic conditions of which are somewhat more similar to our own than the highly industrialised countries for which figures are given in the Economist but I was not able to procure those figures in time.
The cost of living rose more rapidly this year than last year but, again, that increase has been reflected in every country as well as our own. Between a month in 1936 and a month in 1937—in the case of the Free State, August, and in the case of Great Britain, July—the cost-of-living index rose here by 6.9 per cent., and in the United Kingdom by 6.2 per cent. Again, the advantage was slightly in favour of the United Kingdom, but factors are operating to inflate our cost-of-living index here that do not operate there. A much fairer picture will be obtained by taking, not the cost-of-living index for all items, but the index figures for food items alone. Before I deal with that matter, I want you to bear in mind the terms of Deputy Morrissey's motion:—
That the Dáil deplores the lowering of the standard of living of the community by Government action.
Between 1931-2—the last year during which Cumann na nGaedheal were in office and before this Government came into office—and the present year, 1936-7, the index for food prices in the Irish Free State rose by 5.1 per cent. Over the same period, the food prices index for the United Kingdom rose by 7.5 per cent. Deputies opposite laughed when I said that the increase in food prices here was proportionately less than in Great Britain in that period. These are the figures. Let them work them out for themselves. Let them apply to the British Board of Trade for the information which they can supply. I did not do that. I took my information out of published documents—documents which are available to Deputies as well as to me, the Board of Trade journals and the Economist supplement. These figures show that the rise in the cost of living of which Deputies complain has taken place everywhere and could not be avoided in this country.
A rise in the cost of living does not necessarily involve a decrease in the standard of living. If there is an increase in income corresponding to the increase in the cost of living, the standard of living remains unchanged. We, in this country, have no index for wages and, consequently, I cannot give you a precise figure, but I think it is well known that the trend of wages in practically every occupation in recent years has been definitely upwards. In all the big industries which employ adult male workers—the great majority of the adult male workers of the country—the increase recorded in wages is considerably greater, proportionately, than the increase which has been recorded in the cost of living.