I am reminding the Minister of his past. I have not yet used the phrase about people being spat upon, or people so unclean like lepers that no one will touch their hands. I give the Minister a present of two of his sweetest-smelling rhetorical flowers from the many bouquets he handed across this House. There was a strange mixture of this comicality and arrogance to-night. No self-inebriated egotist that I ever listened to was so arrogant as the Minister to-night. Our neutrality and our independence depend upon what? That we, extending a charity that would cover a multitude of sins, will take this Budget and pass it and say it is the only thing that can mend the evils or help to repair the evils that have come upon the community. I am not disposed to surrender any intelligence that I have to the Minister in that respect.
The Minister told us that this is a deliberative Assembly. Apparently, the Minister's idea of a deliberative assembly is that they are merely to announce plans and we are to accept them as national endeavours. I refuse to accept that. I particularly refuse to accept it on a document which, on its face, bears so many marks of blundering and incapacity. Members of this Party have in recent weeks had contact with members of the Minister's Party and, amongst other things, we have queried what was the reason for the mobilisation of the large number of men called to the colours. I do not know if we precisely asked what was the meaning of the new police force. But never did we get the answer given here to-night, and I doubt if any member of the Minister's Government will stand over what he said. He says that the group of people who have been mobilised and who stand under arms were brought there because of the murderous attacks made on the people, on the community, and the technique of terrorism that had developed, and which was likely to be enforced internally.
I never heard that excuse before for the mobilisation of the Volunteers. I do not believe it is true. I do not believe, either, that only for the new recruits to the Guards we might have been embroiled in belligerency with our great neighbour at a time when that great neighbour is at war. If the Minister is going to approach the House seriously, he ought not to try to put up that type of bogey, because that bogey has not been raised in secret conferences by any member of his group. I can say it is inaccurate, and it is misleading the House to put that forward and, if needs be, we shall ask for a statement as to why these people were mobilised. I denounce here and now what the Minister has said as false, and I believe the Minister knows it to be false.
The Minister also stated that, if we did not vote for this Budget, Irish lives are going to be lost, Irish flesh and blood will be embroiled in war. I do not believe it. No case has been made to justify that statement, and it is simply not true. Why should the statement be made? Because the Minister knows that he cannot defend the details of this Budget, and hence we get all the rhetoric and folly and the mixture of comicality and arrogance that we had to-night about our neutrality, our independence and our great neighbour at war, and the statement about Irish flesh and blood being wasted in the war.
We heard nothing to-night about the ¾d. on sugar, and that is what the populace want to hear about. We heard nothing about the ½d. on the pint or the 2d. on the glass of whiskey, or the yet undisclosed amount on the packet of cigarettes. These are the things that the people know about and they want to know why are these things being imposed. They want to know what prices they are likely to face and what is the necessity for the imposition of this additional money. Even if some extra imposition by way of tax is demanded, we are still at liberty to say that the proper means have not been adopted.
We have had this all-sufficing arrogance that enables the Minister to say: "If you do not take this Budget as I present it to you, you are going to wreck neutrality and possibly the independence of the country." That sort of thing will not pass for argument. It was quite clear from the restlessness that could be observed amongst his followers that it was even failing to pass for argument with the members of his own Party. I suggest that when it is read over by the Minister it will appear to him as the folly which it presented itself to us when he spoke.
What does the Budget situation reveal to us? It is quite a serious one. According to the Minister for Finance, two aspects have to be looked at. On our expectation of revenue we are out to the extent of £1,620,000. On the other side, the Minister told us we have incurred heavy expenditure in a variety of services. I am using the word "services" in inverted commas, very distinctly. We have Air Raid Precautions, the Volunteers and the Censorship, as well as coast-watching. We have an undisclosed amount so far as these expenditures are concerned. We are down £1,620,000 as far as the estimates of revenue are concerned. We are going to meet that in what manner? We are going to impose certain taxes which will hit certain parts of the community very hard, and when we have done that we have met about £600,000 odd of the deficit.
The Minister then turns to economies, and he says he will make them to the extent of £400,000. How that is to be divided we do not know, but we do know what services it will come from— unemployment assistance, employment schemes, and housing. These are three of them. There is the Land Commission work in addition, and the draw from the Local Loans Fund. First of all, this point has to be noted. The Ministry, as a whole, ask us to see that employment is provided; that nobody should dismiss men; that it should be remembered that every man dismissed is going to be a burden on the community. The five services that the Minister picked out for economies are services which, I suggest, are going to lead definitely to unemployment. However, for the moment let it be. We meet £600,000 by extra taxation, and we have a possible saving of £400,000. The rest is to be borrowed.
What about the new expenditure which, presumably, is also to be borrowed? That is not mentioned. The Minister for Finance contents himself with the phrase that he has achieved practical equilibrium. The man who walks on a tight rope up amongst the folds of a circus tent, and who is on the point of falling, has, I suppose, achieved what could be described as practical equilibrium. What is going to happen to him, almost immediately, is quite clear. However, we have made an attempt to meet this problem. How is it to be done? Something is to go on income-tax, starting from the next financial year. Immediately ¾d. is to go on sugar, and taxes are to go on beer, spirits, and tobacco.
It is not open to us here to discuss, at this moment, on this particular Resolution, the other imposition that is going to be put on, the ¾d. that is going to be added to sugar, but it is in any event in the context, and the context is this—what has been done for the last couple of days in regard to sugar imposes upon the community an extra taxation of £1,400,000. This £1,400,000 is to be derived from what has always been regarded as an essential of life.
The late Minister for Finance, now the Minister for Industry and Commerce, plaintively asks the House what else is there to tax. I did not think that in the life of this Dáil we would hear the echo of that old phrase. I remember when the then Minister for Education, Deputy Derrig, told us quite plaintively in this House that it was wrong for us to complain of taxes being put upon necessities of life because, he quite candidly explained, there is nothing else left to tax. After so many years of Fianna Fáil government we reached that point two years ago, and we are now back at it. There is nothing else left to tax except a necessity of life, and on that necessity of life we are imposing a burden of £1,400,000. By taxation, the State will gather in nearly £750,000.
If I am asked at this stage do I object to a tax on sugar, I say immediately: "Until all other resources have been exhausted I do object to a tax on sugar." If I am asked is there anything else to tax, I will say that as long as any other range of commodities is open for taxation—outside, possibly, bread—I will choose them in preference to sugar for taxation purposes. And if the Ministry tell me that they have given this matter consideration and have thought deeply over it and have the same view about sugar as I have, then I say the position that is disclosed is lamentable, that we are down definitely and clearly to the last resort.
Is there any other way of getting taxation? As speeches are made here the suggestion appears to be that the scheme of things that has been hammered out by the Fianna Fáil Government in the last five or six years is perfect, that it may suffer a slight change here and there, but that the general scheme is as good as can be thought out. With that proposal, if it is made in such terms, I disagree entirely. I think that the fabric of things in this country has been very seriously disturbed by Fianna Fáil, and not to the benefit of the country, and I think that considerable savings could immediately be made if we discarded, what an economist recently has called, all the political will-o'-the-wisps we have spent seven years in following.
But there are other points to raise, and I want to get the sharp contrast between two things which, to my mind, constitute a definite scandal in the community at the moment. I suppose we hear more at the moment in the way of preaching to and threats against profiteers than we hear of anything else, and yet these sheltered profiteers, the profiteers who have been sheltered by Government action, are being let get away with the loot. It may be said that that is a mere statement, but two sets of the looters have been caught out. They have been reported upon by Government commissions, and in one case a finding was made as to the exact extent of the swag with which these people had got away.
The Minister for Supplies cautions people against hoarding. He adds to that threats about jail for profiteers, and that cry is taken up in chorus by the whole Government. I have here two reports which were both produced by the Prices Commission. One is an ancient document of the year 1934. The other is not so remote. The 1934 document is the result of the deliberations of the Prices Commission, investigating the prices charged for wheaten flour. Flour is one of the things that the Government have very definitely protected. I think, personally, I suffered more odium on this matter of flour than any other individual in the State. I was supposed to have brought the firm of Rank into the country. If I did bring them—and I deny that I did—I certainly did not allow them to extend to the point to which they have extended at the moment, and I certainly never stood over them in respect of any damning indictment such as is contained in this report.
The Prices Commission, in 1934, reported generally on the position in regard to flour that the Commission were of opinion that the prices charged for flour in the Saorstát were unreasonably high. They gave reasons for that conclusion. I only propose to deal with a couple of them. This, remember, is prior to the year 1934, and the scandal then revealed has continued since. Reporting in the year 1934, and dealing with the period before that, they say:—
"The following facts afford an eloquent commentary:—
"Twenty-three milling units showed an aggregate net loss on business in 1930 of over £13,000. In 1931 they showed an aggregate net profit of over £379,000, and in 1932 the aggregate net profits earned by twenty-four undertakings totalled over £263,000. These results included, of course, profits from maize-milling, etc., but arose chiefly from flour-milling activities."
That is by no means the most eloquent statement in the report. This is, to my mind, the best phrase. They talk about the recent flotation of Messrs. Ranks (Ireland), Limited, and give a certain number of figures which represent an achievement in this country that should be chronicled as amongst the greatest piratical efforts of any industrial undertaking in the world. That firm, whoever brought them in, saw their chance in the years 1931 and 1932 and 1933, and what they did was, they floated an Irish company and through that Irish company they sold to the Irish public, whom they invited to subscribe, a certain number of shares, but they definitely safeguarded to themselves the control of the concern. The number of shares sold without the control of the firm being transferred brought them in £533,000. Before that, the Prices Commission report stated that concerns previously capitalised at a lower aggregate figure were incorporated in a new company with a nominal capital of £700,000, and it was possible for the promoters to make a successful flotation on the basis of a market value of £1,452,000. They got from the investing Irish public a little over £500,000. That £500,000 sum did not ensure to the Irish investor the control of the company. How was that amazing achievement brought about? The Prices Commission tell you. They say that it was largely due to the following assurances contained in the prospectus for the loan:
"The amount required annually to pay the dividend on the 350,000 6 per cent. Cumulative Preference Shares is £21,000; on the basis of the average profits for the last three years the dividend on the said 6 per cent. Cumulative Preference Shares is covered more than seven times, and on the same basis the amount available for dividend on the Ordinary Shares, subject to Reserves, is over 38 per cent."
And the Ministry got that report in 1934 and have done nothing about it ever since.
If my offence was rank, and it was supposed to be, I suggest that the offence of the Ministry is still greater. What has happened since? Calculations have been made and have been quoted from this side of the House, and they have not yet been offset with any contrary statement of figures, that at this moment on the sale of the 3,000,000 sacks which this community require as a necessity in the way of flour consumption there has been netted £3,000,000. I do not see how any Deputy in this House can go down to his constituency and say with any feeling of assurance that he is going to back the Minister in setting his face against any increase in wages, profits, or salaries in these hard times when in those other times, and in the years since 1934, this firm—and the outsiders still control the running of the firm—have been getting away with loot to that unimaginable extent.
The findings of the Prices Commission Report of that year merely showed you that picture. People could fill in the details if they had skill enough. But there was shown a picture of glaring profiteering and it was profiteering being done at the expense of the community as a whole. It was being exacted from people on a foodstuff which the majority of the people must buy.
The situation, although the amount made is less, is possibly more scandalous when one turns to this question of bacon. I need not go through this whole matter of the report of the prices charged for bacon. I can summarise it, I think, fairly accurately and concisely, A group of men were selected by the Government in order to run a particular scheme for the betterment of the bacon-producing industry. They were told in an address, from which a quotation was given in the interim report of the tribunal, on which the whole matter is founded, that it was necessary in their own interests to try to prevent the great rise and fall in the price of pigs from time to time, and in the interests of the bacon curers it was suggested that they should flatten out prices. In order to do that it was suggested that they might have to accumulate a fund, and it was even suggested in an heroic mood that these capitalists, these great industrialists, might forego profits for a year or two.
These capitalists and industrialists knew a game that was better than that. They were chosen, presumably, both for their skill in the business and also because it was felt that they had some instinct for the public good. They were put into a position of superiority over the community. They were put into a position where they could, if they liked, do harm to the community by exacting ruthlessly prices for the commodity which were not deserved. They carried on and their operations were examined over a certain number of years. For four years the figures are given with this comment made by the tribunal— that excessive profits were taken by the curers in the period from 1934 to 1937. The amount calculated by the Prices Commission that these curers got away with was £305,000 or £306,000. That leaves out the year 1938, which was a better year than any of the others analysed here.
When we have in our hands for many months a report so condemnatory of the attitude of these people who were put into that superior position, I do not see how we can accept the proposals of the Ministry that we should, for instance, say we want £400,000, according to a report sent in by a committee of our own and accepted by us, when it has been proved to us that certain curers diverted certain machinery to their own use and pocketed nearly £400,000. I do not see how I can go to anybody and say to him that the bacon curers on this board have got away with nearly £400,000 and we are going to let them keep it; that in these years of hardship we are going to turn the blind eye on their proved profiteering. I do not see how we are going to say: "Instead of that we will get that £400,000 by cutting employment schemes, unemployment assistance, and defaulting in the obligations that we have incurred up to date in housing." If there is £400,000 to be got I want to see that the pockets of each of these curers are searched before I will vote one halfpenny in the way of economy from employment schemes, unemployment assistance, or the failure to give housing grants.
When that report was brought before the House we had a debate upon it. The best that the Minister for Agriculture could say on that matter was: "I do not defend these people." He would have been a brazen man who would make that attempt. To-day we had a Bill introduced to abolish that group of people. But they can laugh at us, because they have in their pockets over £300,000 of public money which they got on this commodity. They got it because, as business men with an acute business instinct, they were trusted with a public duty and they betrayed that public trust. The Ministry sits down supinely to try to scratch and dig out nearly £400,000 by economy, and this group are held up to public odium and scorn as having robbed a stated sum. I suggest that before there is any attempt made to exact further money by taxation, and particularly by the taxation of such commodities as sugar, the milling position should be examined, and the position of the bacon curers should be examined, and we should find out what we can get back for the people from those folk who have been demonstrated so definitely and clearly to have robbed the community.
What suggestions have we to make about taxation? has often been asked from the benches opposite. It does appear a joke at this moment to say to any members of the present Government: "Did you not promise a saving of £2,000,000 in taxation?" That has got to be so big a joke that they can even laugh at it themselves. But it was seriously made; at least it was made with sufficient pretence of seriousness to delude the community into voting for them. Is it now to be understood definitely and clearly that all that was a hollow mockery? The Ministry have thrown up their hands at that, and the best the committee on economy can produce is that they are going to cut the four or five services mentioned in the Budget statement. I do not at all accept the statement that there are not other places where economies can be found. For a couple of days this House has resounded with the term "sugar" and the situation about sugar is deplorable.
We had a pretence for years of aiming at and achieving self-sufficiency. Then the war came on. I do not suppose a better statement could be got of just how the depth charge, so to speak, exploded around self-sufficiency than is contained in the lecture I referred to read before the Statistical Society on "The Social Income of the Irish Free State, 1926-38". This phrase occurred in that:
"Then the outbreak of war demonstrated, not the desirability of the autarchic day-dream, but the futility of a pretence of it founded on the importation of semi-manufactured articles."
For seven years the people of this country have been exhorted to make sacrifices, to give in to this, that, and the other imposition, to live laborious days, to put up with taxes, to be harried in their daily life, and all to the end that one day—and it was promised almost as a day soon to dawn—this country would be self-sufficient. It was already self-sufficient in agriculture, and all we needed was to dot a few sugar factories, a few alcohol factories and peat undertakings round the country, and we would be almost entirely self-sufficient. We were swept off our feet, not allowed to stop to think and argue about the industrial development which was proceeding so fast that the Minister in charge of it was at times overburdened, and we could not get a statement of the real economy behind the grand facade of the new industries.
Then the war came and the present Minister for Industry and Commerce went before the Chamber of Commerce. The Minister was in a funny mood before that Chamber. He has evidently decided that he is going to give to Rathmines what was previously meant for the Republic. He was in a mood of candour before the Chamber of Commerce and told them that the economy of this country is a dependent one. That was a satisfactory phrase. Two words that are contrary are "dependence" and "self-sufficiency." He rather I think rudely and brusquely tore the veil aside from his predecessor's doings. Nevertheless, he clearly demonstrated that the economy of this country was dependent on outside supplies of semi-manufactured goods, machinery, replacements, stores, and everything else.
Self-sufficiency was blown up in the early days of the war. We have to keep the pretence still. We have pretty nearly closed down the industrial alcohol factories, and the peat briquette concern is finished. Peat, we were told, in a mood of exultation, was a new industry that was going to be the second industry in the country, next only to agriculture and, as far as Ticknevin is concerned, it has gone. The sugar beet factories at all costs must be kept going. In addition to self-sufficiency, the Ministry prided itself here in early or mid-September, that they had shown considerable forethought in the whole matter of supplies. A new Government Department, a new branch of Industry and Commerce, had been set up under a Minister and special civil servants were allocated to it. They were considering the getting in of essential commodities and in the first couple of speeches we listened to, we saw that the only thing they felt able to boast about was the position with regard to sugar. I asked a question to find out precisely what was the situation with regard to sugar. I start off with the figures repeated here yesterday and to-day, and which may be repeated again in this context, that the consumption of sugar was 100,000 tons, that the sugar factories produced 60,000 tons—sometimes we are told 66,000 tons, but we do the factories no wrong if we say 60,000 tons— that we get in 40,000 tons, which saves us as far as one year is concerned.
But lo and behold, on 1st September, it was found that we had 783,000 cwts., as near as makes no difference to the 40,000 tons we required. That was a grand position. The Minister told as that we were now safe until the production season in 1940 came, that is to say, somewhere about mid-October or mid-November, 1940. The situation as expounded to this House was that we had not exactly self-sufficiency in sugar, but by dint of an addition of 40,000 tons imported to what the factories produced, everything was right until November, 1940. Then we are told the price of sugar is to be raised 1½d., ¾d. of which is tax which the Minister thinks fit at this time to impose as a burden on the community, and the other ¾d. to pay for the cost of the importation. What about the forethought of the Department which anticipated the Department of Supplies? Where are the supplies they got in? Why is there any necessity to charge for these importations, if they had done their duty as they explained to us they had? Is it proper that a Minister who made so bad an error with regard to this importation in respect of sugar should be transferred to the Department of Supplies and given control of the whole supplies of the community?
In any event, we are going to pay ¾d. on sugar for taxation purposes, and another ¾d. for something in the nature of increased cost due to importation. A tax of ¾d. brings in £700,000. If we had the amount of sugar in on the 1st September that the Minister boasted of, we need no other importations until next July, or if we wanted to forestall, we could get in four months' supply during these months. Sugar is on sale at present at £17 6s. Why can we not buy it now? What will it cost us if we buy it now? Less than £40,000. Why should we not buy it? The Minister knows why. The Minister knows that the sugar beet factories must be kept going next year, and, presumably, he is going to offer beet growers in this community an extra price. What will we be paying eventually for home-produced sugar? As far as I understand, a calculation has been made, and it is proposed to give for home-produced sugar something in the neighbourhood of £27 a ton, when we have sugar on offer at £17. That is what is called self-sufficiency. We are going to pay £27 a ton for an article that is freely on offer at £17, and the community are to be scarified by these extra costs of sugar. We are not merely going to pay that huge price for what is offered at a relatively low price, but we are going to tax that substance to bring in another £750,000.
If that is what I am asked to subscribe to as being the best plan to save this country, even its independence or its neutrality, I am not sure that I might not prefer war; but I do not regard that as the only way that this matter can be met. The pamphlet I have referred to before holds out very little hope for this country on the present pattern of its economic development. Grave and serious as war may be—and in the background there are hungry years ahead of the people who will be touched by the war, and few can hope to escape—even for the period it lasts some of the community will do relatively well, and it is suggested in this lecture to which I have referred, that this country might do well, if its natural development were allowed to progress, if the people were not diverted into unprofitable occupations, and if the pattern of economic development were not distorted by politics.
At the moment we, being of different Parties, are asked to join with the Government, who still are a Party, and are playing Party politics. We are asked to join with them when they bring forward a Budget which, I say, is weak on its face, and that is put to us in the sacred name of independence, neutrality and saving the lives of the people. That is what I described at the beginning as arrogance. It is presented to us as the only plan, based on what I suggest are falsehoods, to buttress the weak statement made on the Budget by certain Ministers. The Government have been luckier than most Governments in this country. They got the co-operation of the community; they had the toleration of the community in very many of the things that the community feels sore about. They should not abuse that confidence. People in this House are anxious to give the Ministry a free hand. They should not be insulted by being told that all the excogitations of the Fianna Fáil Party and the Economic Committee have only resulted in the meagre saving of £400,000, in the bad choice of the ways in which that £400,000 is to be saved; the further statement that increased taxation is necessary; the shockingly bad choice of the articles on which the increased taxation is placed, and the definite, bewildering and disquieting silence with regard to the future.
What is the extent of the piling on going to be? Is the Minister prepared to say that even in the short period between now and the next normal period for the introduction of a Budget there will be no further increase in taxation, and that whatever we are going to do, whether simply putting off the evil day or borrowing, these methods are going to be resorted to, instead of further taxation? I suggest that it is well known to the public at large that there is extravagance rampant all round the Government, that there are fatuous schemes still persisted in, which are wasteful and detrimental to the economy of this community, and not likely to last, possibly not going to last for the period of the war, and after sacrificing all that I ask here and now what gain or immediate benefit there will be?
The Minister for Finance must know that there is widespread disquiet over what he announced in the House yesterday. The Minister knows well that it is not going to be possible to adhere to both exhortations of the Government, to pay this tax and fill the revenue, if he wants to avail of the fruits of the tax and, at the same time, expect ordinary business and ordinary households to keep everyone in employment. The two things are not possible. It may be an unfortunate phrase, and there may be something in the background, but when Ministers are pleading for support from all Parties, I do not understand why the phrase that has been so definitely commented on in the Budget was ever written into it—that which threatens drastic action in certain events. We are told that further increases, unfortunately, are probable, and the Minister tells us that there will be a strong temptation to demand corresponding increases in wages, salaries and profits. We are told then about the spiralling of prices of various commodities that would be started as a result—a commonplace of economics—and we are told that the Government is determined to set its face against the efforts of any class to obtain compensation for the rise in prices at the expense of the community. How can the Government expect to be taken seriously in that matter, when the bacon curers and the millers are ranting around the country, boasting about their profits and talking about how much they have made—some of them boasting that they do not care whether they are nationalised, confiscated or socialised, because they have made their pile and their stuff is safe? That is what is being said, and these phrases are current in certain circles.
Some effort must be made to grip these people, and no matter whether one report is dated 1934 and the other a year ago, it is not too late for the Government to mend its hand, and if an example were given to this community, by extracting from the millers and the bacon curers some part of their ill-gotten gains, it would do far more good than hours wasted in debate in this House. Then we would have some way, then we would have some ability to approach other people who are not yet proved to be profiteers, but about whom the anticipation of profiteering has been raised, and say to them: "Take a lesson from the example that has been given to you in the case of the millers and the bacon curers; take a lesson from that before you embark on any such policy." How can the Ministry pretend to be amazed at the feelings that have been aroused at the use of that phrase, about the Government being determined to set its face against the efforts of any class to obtain compensation for the rise in prices at the expense of the community, when, in their own immediate past, there are these definite exactions made by the millers and those who profiteered and trafficked in bacon? If the Government is determined to set its face against the efforts of any class to obtain compensation for the rise in prices at the expense of the community, let it be remembered that the millers did what I have mentioned without any necessity for them to get compensation for the rise in prices at the expense of the community, and the same remark applies to the bacon curers. At the moment, there may be a temptation to get compensation for the rise in prices, but I cannot see how any Minister could take action in such circumstances against any group when there can be hurled against him the remark that can be hurled against him in connection with the millers and the bacon curers. I suggest that the Government should read that phrase, with pointed meaning, to those two sets of people who have certainly mishandled this community in their dealings with them for six or seven years past, and it is no use to abolish one group if you let the others continue.
Apart from that, does the Minister think that it is possible to avoid an increase in wages, salaries and so on at this time? For some years past, the people of this country have had to face the fact that the purchasing power of £4, £5 or £6 a week had gone down, as a result of the high prices that had to be paid for certain commodities due to subsidies and so on. The purchasing power was brought down in that way, and the wage-earners were induced to agree, for a period, to the reduction, by appeals to their patriotism, when the Minister was engaged in his whipping campaign and boasting about whipping the people with whom he now wants to be so friendly. On these grounds, he could appeal then to the people to stand behind him and give him strength to emerge victorious even though the poor people had to suffer certain deprivations.
That burden is still there, and now, on top of that burden, the Minister adds certain other burdens by way of taxation. That is not the whole of the story. He knows that everything that comes in from other countries—and the Minister for Industry and Commerce says that we are dependent on other countries—has increased in price. Is it inside the limits of human patience to tolerate a still further decrease in purchasing power when, no doubt, the future will show still more glaring examples of profiteering even beyond the few examples I have given?
There is one other example which I should like to give, not so much to the Minister as to the House in general. We ourselves, as one group of the community, are in a delicate position at the moment in talking to outsiders in the community about not seeking any increase in wages and salaries or profits. There was a time when the Ministers ranted around the country on public platforms about the amazing monetary emoluments that were to be got by those in office, and when they came into office they, in a self-sacrificing way, insisted on cutting down their emoluments, but at a time when there was certainly no great burden, through increased prices, spectacularly before the people, the Ministers decided that their salaries were not sufficient, and that our salaries as Deputies were not sufficient, and all were accordingly raised. It behoves us, therefore, to be careful when we set out to lecture the community not to try to look for increases of wages and salaries to meet increased prices. We may have a case for what we did here—I think there is a case to be made—but we are in a somewhat delicate position, and we should not adopt this very superior air towards people on the £3, £4 and £5 a week level—not for travelling expenses and allowances, but for their entire subsistence—and if that phrase about the determination of the Government to set its face against the efforts of any class to obtain compensation for the rise in prices is to be used, I think it should be used with full advertence to the facts.
The Minister should have told us whether he apprehended any demand for increased wages, salaries and profits, under what circumstances these apprehensions had arisen, and how far he had gone to meet those who thought they should get increases by lessening the burdens these people have to bear on small salaries. But, merely in the vague, it was a deplorable thing that the Minister should have written into that speech that particular phrase, and read it as he did; and still more deplorable that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should have argued, as he did to-night, with regard to the very justifiable comments that were made on his speech. This is a bad Budget. It is a shocking situation which has been revealed with regard to the country. The country would pardon this Parliament a lot, but one thing that they will not pardon is hypocrisy, and that phrase, in the context I have mentioned it, smacks very much of hypocrisy, and I hope the Minister will advert to it.