To finish the matter, I shall just reiterate the one point I made. I charge Deputy Lemass with a dereliction of duty if, as he stated, even on the basis of facts which would seem to require explanation, he would not propose to charge a member or members on these benches with corruption. I think that is a dereliction of duty and we shall leave it at that.
To get on to matters which I think will not be in any dispute whatsoever in relation to the question of the Finance Bill, the more serious matters, as they ultimately will prove, will be the question of the relationship which the Finance Bill will attempt to establish between wages, prices and other economic factors. These undoubtedly are of far more importance and should be attended to. The Minister made certain exhortations and, as far as we are aware in this House, unless the Minister has proof to the contrary, it would appear that these exhortations to the traders, manufacturers and business community generally have fallen on deaf ears. He stated when he made these exhortations that he knew the position of these sections of the community in regard to the profits which they had derived in excess of the normal rate of profits during the emergency and he proposed, rightly we all thought, that these funded profits should be used by the manufacturers in the interests of the community generally.
My submission is that these general exhortations addressed, either to manufacturers or the business community, will be as futile as the exhortations which he addressed to trade unionists and workers generally. I think more positive action is required than that. I do not believe, from my experience, that there will be any use whatsoever in the Minister making these general appeals to the workers to refrain from seeking higher wages and better conditions. It is quite obvious from the recent movement in regard to better wages in the bakery and flour milling trade that what I am saying is correct—that something more positive and definite is required.
I would suggest to the Minister that there are several sources open to him. First of all, as he evidently relies upon a voluntary movement on the part of the economic sections which have in their power the influencing of prices, he should address to them, having thought out the matter carefully within the limits of the economic machinery, a direction as to the extent to which he would desire a brake on prices in regard to the whole economic picture or any definite sections of it. He should single them out and it should be possible for him, with the data at his command which he talked about—he mentioned that he had the full facts at his finger-tips now, that he was not talking from newspaper reports but knew the position exactly—to determine whether one section of the business community should be able to cut prices by 5, 7 or 10 per cent. or whether the facts of the situation would warrant an all-round decrease in prices of 10 per cent. or 5 per cent.
If he gives an indication more specific than he has given by general exhortation, a movement might be made in that direction, because, as things are now, all that will happen is that one section of the business community will hold back to see what another section will do. In that situation, if anything is done, it will be done at a very slow pace. Postponement will follow postponement until quite a considerable period runs out, without any relief to the consumer or any appreciable decline in the price level. There is the other method, the more direct method, of making definite suggestions to them with regard to the profit level or rate obtained in certain directions. It should, I think, be within his competence to make out a general outline, a plan of campaign, something in the nature of a planned economy, if you wish, in regard to this matter.
The alternative to that, an alternative of which I would feel more enamoured, is that the Minister should commit himself to the establishment of a prices and profits court but not upon the basis put forward in the Industrial Efficiency and Prices Bill, 1947. That has many defects which I do not wish to discuss here, but its whole modus operandi, through the system of a commission, would not achieve the results which a prices court would achieve. The idea of a prices court which would run parallel or complementary to the Labour Court would force section after section of the different businesses in regard to which disputes existed to come before it and prove that they had the right to charge the prices then obtaining to the public.
There are certain organisations of consumers—there are many groups of organised housewives, such as the Countrywomen's Association — who keep a very keen eye on price movements and who would be only too anxious to avail of such a court in order to make a case on behalf of the consumers as to why prices should be reduced in respect of certain given commodities. If the manufacturers, the wholesalers and the retailers—right along the line— were forced to defend their case there, the publicity alone, even without considering the powers which would be given to that court, would be sufficient to enable us to bring down the cost of living in many directions.
I do not want to stress that point in more detail. I give it to the Minister as a worthwhile suggestion which will enable us to mitigate somewhat the impact of the many industrial conflicts which may be looming up, because, no matter what the Minister says to the trade unionists, he will receive the same reply as was received by Ministers in a Labour Government in Great Britain. The trade unionists will always return the answer: "What about prices?" Whenever an appeal is made to them to stabilise wages, to go slow in the matter of asking for increased wages, they will want to know what is being done in regard to prices to make their real wages of more value than they are at present.
The figures the Minister gave in regard to wages, production and so on prove conclusively that none of the workers at present are making extravagant claims, that they are merely attempting to do what he said, that is, to get back to the real wages they received in 1939 or before the war, to make the money they earn of real value to them in purchasing power. On the basis of the figures the Minister quoted, the workers as a whole are producing more for less wages than in 1939, and, in effect, the difference is yet about 15 per cent., that is, they have to bring their wages up by another 15 per cent., according to the Minister's figures, in order to bring them anywhere near the value they previously had.
It is only by the strictest control of prices—and I do not think we ever had very strict control for the past 16 years or during the period when there was an attempt to operate price control machinery; it certainly did not work in a way which would appeal to the public as doing what it was intended to do —all the way through, from the manufacturer or the importer through the wholesaler to the consumer, that wages can be given anything like the purchasing power they had. Without that strict control of prices, there will be nothing but futility facing any Government which addresses its remarks to workers in regard to wages movements. Not even the trade unionists—the Trade Union Congress or the Congress of Irish Unions combined—could halt this movement which will naturally cause grave concern to the Minister in relation to its effect upon the whole economic structure.
The workers do not believe the Minister's statement, which is quite common among orthodox economists, that an increase in money incomes is rapidly swallowed up by rising prices. This has never been proved satisfactorily. In fact, the workers generally believe that their attempts to secure increased wages are efforts to keep up with rising prices and they have never been able to do so. They have always lagged behind, and there has always been a time lag, and the fact that one section of industry secures an increase in wages does not necessarily have an over-all effect upon the cost of living. If we had a prices court such as I suggest, we could examine into profits and into the whole mechanism, and see whether any of the increases put on from time to time are in fact justifiable.
There have been cases before the Labour Court, as the Minister is aware, in which the employer automatically answers any demand for wage increases by showing, or attempting to show, or alleging, that these increases will mean an automatic increase in the cost of whatever unit the employer produces. In one particular case I know of, instead of its representing, as alleged by the employer, an increase of 2d. on the unit, it worked out at something around a farthing. We could find many more examples of that type of thing. If we had such a court as that we could, perhaps, tackle this question of the bread strike from an angle which might lead to more advantageous results than have been evident up to the present. I do not want to go into the merits or demerits of that strike. It is sub judice to some extent. No doubt the question in the minds of the workers is whether or not the employers are able to afford these increases and whether their profits are of such extent or magnitude as to permit of an increase in wages. Sometimes a question like that is considered to be one requiring no argument. It is taken for granted that the employers' profits are sacrosanct and must not be touched and that they should be permitted the prevailing rate no matter what that rate is. There is a continuous exhortation to the working classes to make greater sacrifices, to stabilise conditions and to withhold demands for increases. In order to have an informed public opinion on existing affairs, such as is required in a democratic country under a democratic Government, we should see to it that there is an examination into the profits of the manufacturers and into the profits of all those who employ labour in order to ascertain whether such profits cannot be reduced for the general good of the community in the prevailing situation. I think the proper place to argue all these points in regard to profits and prices is before a court complementary to the Labour Court.
In the same way as we have exhortations to refrain from asking for increased wages we have repeated pleas from the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, echoed by all responsible members of this House, for increased production. These exhortations fall upon deaf ears if there is no definite incentive for increased production. Obviously the main incentives for increased production are decent or improved wages, better housing conditions, price control, social insurance and a financial and industrial policy which will support and protect industry on an efficient basis. All these things are, of course, correlated with much wider issues than I have indicated here.
I am not suggesting for one moment that the establishment of a prices and profits court would usher in an era of increased production and would enable us to have a more efficient economy than we have at the present time, because we must take world factors into consideration. World factors are beyond our control. We have to withstand the impact and effect of these upon our own economy if they are adverse; and we have to court and use them to our own advantage if they are of advantage to our general economy. In regard to increased production it appears to me that in the past we have not given sufficient protection to those industries which would prove the best basis for an increased production. Naturally a tariff policy requires a considerable time to work out. There are many snags in it. A Government must feel its way and learn how best to operate. I do not speak in a critical manner when I make that statement. I do not wish here to criticise policy but I do think that there are examples of a lack of proper consideration for the type of industry we have, particularly the boot and shoe industry.
Taking the boot and shoe industry, it seems to me that we have very little understanding of the importance of that industry. We have done very little to protect this country in relation to that industry. There are some truly astonishing figures. If I refer to the Board of Trade figures for the periods December, 1947, and March, 1948, I am sure most of the Deputies in this House will find cause for wonder. I want to show the importance of this country to the British export drive and to show how we underrate the importance of it. The total export to 42 foreign countries of British footwear in December, 1947, amounted to £236,611. The amount exported to Éire was £137,634.