asked the Minister for Supplies whether he will lay on the Table of the Dáil the agreements which he has made with the boot manufacturers and woollen textile manufacturers whereunder they agreed not to raise the prices of their products during the last 12 or 18 months.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Agreements with Boot and Woollen Textile Manufacturers.
No agreement of the kind mentioned in the question was made. For some months past the price of goods produced by these manufacturers has been the subject of a special investigation and, as I have explained to the Dáil (Vol. 83, Col. 2066), arrangements were made with the manufacturers individually as to prices. These arrangements vary with the circumstances of each case and are not of a nature which could be tabled in the Dáil. It can be said, however, that the effect of the arrangements is a general reduction in prices.
Dues the Minister recall stating in Dáil Éireann, at column 2354 of volume 83. No. 7, on the 19th June, that the prices of boots and shoes were generally lower than they were this time last year and, at column 2355 of the same volume, that an arrangement had been made with the boot manufacturers under which their prices were reduced as compared with the prices prevailing last year? Is he further aware that boot No. 478 cost 18/6 in January, 1939; 21/- in October, 1939, and 22/6 in November, 1940? Is he further aware that boot No. 1921 cost 16/4 in May, 1939; 17/6 in December, 1939; 20/9 in October, 1940, and 21/3 in November, 1940 f In view of these facts, does he still adhere to his statement that the prices of boots are substantially lower than or the same—they were last year and that he has an agreement with the boot manufacturers to that end? Has the Minister any reply?
It would take a speech to reply to that.
Are the facts not true that the price of boot's has gone up 20 per cent. and that the Minister has had wool pulled over his eyes or is attempting to pull wool over the eyes of Dáil Éireann?
I merely stated facts, that arrangements were made. If the Deputy will read the reference which I have given in my reply he will find set out there, not merely the experience of my Department in the matter of price control in respect of manufacturers' products, but also the procedure now being adopted which involves, not the making of price arrangements in respect of commodities generally, but arrangements with individual manufacturers. That change in the procedure has resulted in a general reduction in the prices of these commodities.
Is the Minister aware that I am giving him one of several numbers from the ranges of two of the principal boot manufacturers in this country which represent an increase of 20 per cent. in their prices? How does he reconcile that with the statement I have quoted from his speech at column 2355 in which he says that the prices of boot manufacturers were reduced as compared with the prices prevailing last year?
May I make it quite clear that I did not state at any time that the prices now prevailing were lower than or equal to the prices which prevailed before the war? That could not have been expected. What I did state was that during the course of last year, as a result of these individual arrangements with manufacturers, a lowering of prices generally was effected.
Does the Minister advert——
The Deputy may not quote the same words three times in supplementary questions.
I am not quoting the same words. The Minister says he did not allege that boots were cheaper now than before the war. I am drawing the Minister's attention to the fact that in December, 1939, after the war began, the price was 17/6; in October, 1940, 12 months after the war began, the price was 20/9, and a month later, in November, 1940, the price had gone up to 21/3. Either the Minister is being deceived or else he is trying to deceive the House. That should not happen.
I think these suggestions that I am trying to deceive the House should not be permitted.
Why?
Because it is not permissible to allege that a Minister has deliberately deceived the House.
I am asking the Minister to state to the House, is it true that he has been deceived or, knowing the facts, has he sought to deceive us? If he has been deceived, why does he not take steps to ensure that he will not be deceived in future?