Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1946 (Continuance and Amendment) Bill, 1950—Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Major de Valera

It is time, in view of developments in this debate, to unmask the pretence that the cost of living has been held steady. In doing that, I want to unmask the pretence that the cost of living stayed steady until August last, the fact of the situation being that, since this Government came into office, the cost of living has been creeping and had risen substantially by August last, in spite of the assertions of the Parliamentary Secretary which, on analysis of the data, will be found not to be accurate. Since August, there has been a further increase in the cost of living. It is important to ascertain the facts in this case for this reason, that, instead of facing up to the problem, this Government has been more concerned with devices to prevent the normal statistics showing the real increase in the cost of living which has taken place and with justifying themselves.

At the outset, I think it is legitimate to contrast the outlook and history in regard to this problem—admittedly a difficult one—of this Coalition Government over the past three years with the outlook and method of attack of the previous Administration. I said on the last occasion and I say it again— and I will substantiate what I say with facts and figures, both from official statistics and other sources—that all this Government has done is to allow things to drift. Where the drift has been favourable, they and the country have had the benefit; where it has been adverse, they have done nothing to counteract the trend in any effective degree. That is the serious aspect of our whole situation when one considers what this country may have to face in the future and when one considers how the tide of world affairs is flowing.

I have said that it is legitimate to contrast the history of the cost of living under two administrations. Before the war, there was a tendency for the cost of living to rise because of preparations and the inflation that attends all preparations for war. With the outbreak of the emergency, the last Government, as well as having to tackle the defence situation and all the other problems of the emergency, were able to tackle the question of the cost of living, and, through methods of price control, wage control, rationing and subsidies, they did in fact, as is very easily seen from the official statistics of November, 1943, stabilise the cost of living, in spite of all the problems of the years 1939 to 1942. During these years from 1943 until February, 1947, the cost of living was held virtually steady.

I gave the history of this matter as far back as 1948 and I do not want to repeat it, but the story will be found in Volume 110, column 373 onwards. The fact, in brief, is that, during the static period from 1943 to 1947, the cost of food items rose a little, but the cost of living generally remained virtually steady, and, as compared with the figure of 294, the old index, in November, 1943, the figure in February, 1947, was 295.

Mr. Hickey

Wages were kept down, too.

Major de Valera

All that was secured by positive action on the part of the Government which faced up to the problem. The methods used at the time, and they were appropriate at the time, were wage control, price control, rationing and subsidies, because they were about the only weapons available. This can be said that what was done at that time worked out to the advantage particularly of the wage-earner during that period.

Mr. Hickey

Did it?

Major de Valera

The subsequent history proves that it did, and the talk of Labour representatives at the moment shows that it did. Now, from February, 1947, to August, 1947, the cost of living rose steeply. It rose because of three main causes. Firstly, there was a large increase in the price of wheat which we had to import, in the price of tea and of other commodities. Secondly, the prices which our producers at home would get for their produce, that is to say, the farmers, rose in sympathy with world trends and, while that was beneficial to them and to the community, in one sense, it was detrimental to the consumer and represented a rise in the cost of living. Thirdly, the standstill Order was removed. It was necessary to remove it—quite apart from pressure—due to the rise in the cost of the other two things, but the removal of the standstill Order contributed to the rise in the cost of living, which was noticeable from February, 1947, until August, 1947.

Now, there is what happened. The steps taken in the early part of the war held the cost of living. When the crisis came, and the war started, the Government of the day did face up to its problems. It did what was appropriate and, amongst other things, it held the cost of living steady during the emergency period. At the end of the war there was another crisis. That always happens, both at the beginning and at the end of an emergency. Again, the cost of living rose, and, again, the Government faced up to its problems. As I said on Thursday, whatever one may say—what was done then largely contributed to the defeat of the Government—this can be said for them, that at least they faced up to their responsibilities when the cost of living was rising to heights roughly equivalent to what it is to-day and no more—a little less, if anything. The cost-of-living problem was tackled and the Supplementary Budget was brought in. It brought down the cost of living. Nobody can work a miracle, and to take action demanded that certain unpopular steps be taken. The steps taken were not popular, and, as I say, they contributed to the defeat of the last Government. But, at least, the last Government did their duty, and the action taken brought down the cost of living by three points straightway. It stabilised it and it remained so for some time.

That is the history of the last Administration. No matter how much you may criticise or disagree with the methods adopted by the last Administration — you may say that they overdid it in the Supplementary Budget or whatever you like—but this you cannot say, that they shirked their responsibility or evaded the problem, or that, when faced with a problem, they did not take some concrete steps to deal with it. The record of what they did is there and it shows that the steps taken were effective.

Let us take this Administration. The Government of this State was handed over to this Coalition in relatively favourable circumstances. The action of the previous Government had held the cost of living and had stabilised it. This Coalition came in on a tide of promises to reduce the cost of living with all the other promises that they had made. What, in fact, has happened? This, that they have done nothing beyond, at this late hour, three years afterwards, they propose to set up an advisory body to advise them as to what they should do in regard to a problem that has been mounting in proportions for three years. Within a short time of the increase occurring in 1947, the last Government tackled the problem, but this Government has not tackled it yet. Instead, they have been more concerned with devices for keeping the statistical representation of the cost of living in this book down than with dealing with the cost of living itself. We have had the brainwaves of the Minister for Finance. It is Deputy McGilligan, the Minister for Finance, who probably more than anybody else, is responsible for this by his device of taking things off the ration and then, because they are off the ration, not having them included in the cost-of-living index, and letting it relate only to the cost of rationed commodities. In that way, the real cost of living is largely masked. But, in spite of that device, the official figures which the Parliamentary Secretary quoted still show a rise in the cost of living.

That is what has been happening, that in spite of the efforts made to throw the burden over in directions which will not be reflected in the official index of the cost of living, the rise is reflected in that index all the same if one looks at it carefully. That is the history of this Government. As I have said, it is a serious and dangerous thing for this country, in present conditions, to let problems drift in that way. We have the same in regard to emigration; the same in regard to the employment figure—let it drift and work itself out. So, too, in the case of the Rent Acts. Now, we have another commission. There is nothing done in regard to it or to the cost of living but drift. In defence we have drift again. Whatever the future may hold for us, we are just drifting into it. It depends on the overall tide of the times on what rock we will be landed, or whether, by chance, we will pass safely through, and ride into harbour. That is the position. Of course, one is not surprised. That has been the story of Coalitions. Deputies remember the story of France under Blum before the last war, the Popular Front and all the rest of it. Because of French Coalitions, what happened to France? We know what the result was. France drifted, so that when the crisis of 1940 came Frenchmen could be heard to say "Better Hitler than Blum." Let us hope that there will not be people here complaining in similar terms at a later date about this Coalition. I know that Deputy Davin does not like to hear this, but Deputy Davin and the Labour Party, and the Clann na Poblachta Party, are keeping a Fine Gael-dominated Government in office.

Mr. Keane

Are you vexed?

Major de Valera

No, not a bit. If you have any explanation make it to the people who are talking about the cost of living because you are keeping this Government in office, and you cannot escape your responsibilities. You have had three years in which to make them do what you wanted them to do, but you have not done it. The class which the Labour Party profess to represent is being let down at every turn. Is that to go on? I do not mind the Clann na Poblachta Party. They have got what they wanted, a hand in the Government, but you, who profess to be looking after Labour and who profess to be interested in the worker, just look at what you have done!

I will give you a few facts. Coming to the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, as I said I was surprised at his approach. I read from the Government's supporting newspaper of the following day:—"No increase in the cost of living, Dáil told." Then I read further that the Parliamentary Secretary refuted the suggestion that there was any increase in the cost of living from mid-August, 1947, to mid-August, 1950. I had better deal with that problem. I will deal with it on the basis, first, of the statistics and then what the housewives feel. I pointed out already that if one looks at page 176 of the last issue of the Trade Journal, the cost-of-living index for all items rose to 102 before last August. From August, 1949, to last August it was one point higher than it was during 1948, except for May, 1948. That index really represents the food index, because in computing the index the items of food are predominantly weighted.

If one looks at clothing you will see that clothing has gone up from about 101 to 111, that is about ten points. Light and fuel have shown an increase on the average also, though, if one wanted, you could say that light and fuel, as far as the index is concerned, are almost steady. As I have said, that index reflects the food items and the reason that the cost-of-living trend is not more marked is simply because of the off-ration devices to which I have referred.

Now, if one goes further back on these journals and takes out the table associated with the cost-of-living index in regard to food in each issue, one will be able to get the particulars of prices. I propose to give you now the price trends in connection with items of food. I can do that in no better way than to take the meals during the day to see whether the cost of living is up or not. Let us start with breakfast. For breakfast we usually have tea or coffee, sugar, milk, bread, butter, margarine, porridge, which involves oatmeal; bacon, eggs, and sausages.

Mr. McQuillan

Not since 1948.

Major de Valera

You will get the figures in a moment. There is dearer oatmeal now and eggs are 5/6 a dozen. Then for dinner you have beef, mutton, bacon, fish, potatoes, vegetables, salt, etc. Then there are also tea, bread, butter, jam, confectionery and sundry foods such as flour, cheese, lard, black and white puddings, grapefruit, oranges and sweets. In all these items, with the exception possibly of pigs' heads, there has been no substantial decrease anyway and most of them have gone up as I will show when I come to go through them in detail. The cost of living, as represented by food, was up before August and is up more at present. Take transport, bus fares, petrol, tyres, oil and grease, clothing, footwear, leather, blankets, haircuts, laundry, insurance, postage, and the rise in catering establishment prices and let anybody tell me that the cost of living is not up.

Taking them in sequences, here are the details. The price of tea was reduced by 2/2 per lb from 4/10 per lb., that is reduced to 2/8 per lb. by the Supplementary Budget. The Fianna Fáil Government reduced the price of tea by 2/2 per lb. The price of rationed tea remains at that level to-day, and the ration is two ounces. However, off the ration tea has been made available in unlimited quantities at the black market price of 5/6 per lb. It was announced in the newspapers round about 29th July, 1949, that unlimited quantities would be available at the black market price of 5/6. There was a slight increase in the ration at one time, but there has been no increase since. In other words, more tea is being bought and it has to be bought at a higher price. That increase in the cost of living is masked because unrationed tea is not included in the index.

Not only was that done with tea, but, at the same time as this brainwave was put into operation, the permit system for catering establishments was abolished. Hotels, cafes, restaurants, and harvest workers were compelled to buy tea at the unsubsidised price and on 25th February, 1950, a further increase to 6/- per lb. was announced. There is the history of tea. Not only did it mean an increase in the cost of living for families who had to buy it in excess of the ration, but it meant an increase in price for people who had to eat out during the day. It hit the white-collar workers very hard. Many civil servants and others who, in the City of Dublin, have to take a meal out during the day take a light meal very frequently. Catering establishments were refused permits and the price went up. I was in such an establishment yesterday where you now pay 10d. for a pot of tea. The unrationed commodity has not increased in price, nor has it been reduced. But, as I say, tea is sold at the Government black-market price and the amount of the ration is such that most people are compelled to purchase it.

The price of coffee jumped up also. I think the present price is almost double what it was a few years ago at 4/6 per lb. The next item is sugar and there we have the same story. Before the Supplementary Budget of 1947 sugar was 6d. per lb. It was reduced by the Supplementary Budget of the Fianna Fáil Government to 4d. per lb., at which price the rationed sugar remains to-day. It certainly has not been reduced. It remains at the price to which the Fianna Fáil Government reduced it and the ration is three-quarters of a lb. Again, the off-the-ration device was employed. The Coalition made unrationed sugar available at 7½ per lb. and that price was increased last October to 8½d. per lb., and then subsequently reduced to 8d. per lb., so that consumers to-day are paying 8d. per lb. for a large proportion of the sugar that they require.

The position in regard to sugar is interesting in this regard. We have not all the latest figures. So far as the figures I have indicated are concerned, the Government have been almost completely successful so far as one can judge, very largely anyway, in subsidising the rationed proportion of the sugar by means of the price attaching to the unrationed sugar. Therefore, the idea of controlling the price of sugar is a sham. By the device of making unrationed sugar pay, because of its larger consumption, for the subsidy put on the rationed three-quarters of a pound, the Government has evaded the burden. Since unrationed sugar does not come within the scope of the index, the cost of sugar to the consumer is being masked and the increase does not appear in the official index. In regard to the extent to which sugar is being subsidised through the medium of unrationed sugar, I am unable to go further because of the absence of figures, but it certainly subsidises a considerable proportion, anyway. I have dealt now with sugar.

Let us take milk. I shall take the Trade Journal figures in 1947 and I shall extract the price in each quarter up to date. What does one find? One finds that, on the figures shown, the average of the price quoted for fresh milk was greater in 1948 and 1949 than it was in 1947; and may I remind the House we have not yet got the complete figures for 1950?

Mr. Keane

And Deputy Corry wants another increase.

Major de Valera

The position is, for the benefit of Deputy Keane, that the Coalition Government has done nothing so far as these figures are concerned, for the consumer. It is quite obvious from the remarks of Deputies and others that the Coalition Government has neither satisfied the producer. It is, again, the story of the old man and the ass: trying to please everybody, you please nobody. Let us take the official list relating to milk. I have here the price lists issued by R.G.D.A.T.A. for November 6th, 1947, and October 31st, 1950. These are comparable dates. What do they show? If one looks at milk, one sees that in 1947 bottled milk was 5d. per pint delivered; it is now 5½d. delivered. Loose milk delivered was 4¾d.; it is now 5¼d. Loose milk in the shop was 4¼d.; it is now 4¾d. On these figures it is obvious that the price of milk has gone up. The result is that, on the figures I have given the House, the beverage, whether it be tea or coffee, that we drink at breakfast, containing sugar and milk, has gone up because every item that goes towards making that beverage has gone up. Now, let us take bread.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Light beer would be down in price, though.

Major de Valera

Let us take bread. Before the Supplementary Budget, introduced in 1947, the price of the 2-lb. loaf was 6¾d. On the introduction of that Budget it was reduced to 6d. by means of subsidies in October, 1947. In August, 1948, under the Coalition Government, the price was increased to 6¼d. These figures refer to the 85 per cent. extraction loaf. Not satisfied with that small increase in the price of bread—though when one considers the quantity of bread consumed, it represents a substantial increase—the Government, in this case I think the Minister for Agriculture, was responsible for the introduction of the white loaf, another black market device, if you like. The 75 per cent. extraction loaf was introduced. I think the 2-lb. loaf is almost twice as dear as the ordinary loaf. It runs somewhere around 1/-. Therefore, the price of bread has gone up. I shall deal with flour here, though I am taking it out of its sequence more or less, but, since it is allied to bread, I think it is more fitting to introduce it into the picture at this stage. The Supplementary Budget of 1947 reduced the price of household flour from 3/10¼d. per stone to 2/10¼d.; under that Budget, the Fianna Fáil Government pulled down the price of household flour by 1/- per stone. It has remained at the price at which the Fianna Fáil Government left it.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

But the taxes went up.

Major de Valera

That is the position with regard to 85 per cent. extraction flour. But white flour was introduced at 7/- a stone as from January, 1949, so that bread and the things that go to the making of bread have gone up. The next item is butter and margarine.

Mr. Keane

What type of institution? Is it public or private.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. M. O'Reilly)

Order.

Major de Valera

The next item is margarine. In May and August of 1947, margarine was 1/6 per lb. I cannot find the figure for November, 1947, but it reappears in December, 1948, at 2/- per lb. under the Coalition Government. I do recollect, though I have not been able to trace it, a slight increase in the price of margarine after the present Government took office. It was subsequently reduced to 1/8 and later still to 1/6 per lb. However, this month it has been increased again to 1/8, and the net result is that margarine has gone up in price.

It had risen by November, 1949, to 3/-. By August, 1950, it was 3/1½d. Irish shoulder shows the same type of increase—handed over at about 1/7¾d. and rising to 1/10¾d. in August. Pigs' heads, I grant you, show a decrease but now listen to the comments as we go along. The price of bacon was decontrolled in 1949. Following decontrol the price rose and the Irish Independent, mark you a great favourite of Deputy O'Higgins, on 16th August, 1949, under the heading, “Increase in the Price of Bacon”, said:—

"The present retail price of bacon is 3/1 per lb. for most popular cuts and for smoked cuts 3/2. The less popular cuts may be purchased for 1/11 per lb. The average general retail prices for some time past have been from 2/11½ for best cuts down to 1/9¼."

Then again the same paper on the 18th August, 1949, had an editorial on the price of bacon which stated that "it seems the more bacon we get, the more we shall be required to pay for it," and suggested drastic action, which has not been taken yet. On May 20th, 1950, the Irish Times reported a further increase in the price of bacon, and a still further increase was reported within a week by the Sunday Press. As I say, pigs' heads were the bright spot, but it is interesting to note that at the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union's Conference, a speaker rejected the suggestion of the Minister for Agriculture that the workers should concentrate on pigs' heads, saying that the workers were entitled to better.

Deputy Corish, the Parliamentary Secretary, replying for the Minister for Agriculture in the Dáil on 16th November, 1950, felt that gammon and ham belonged to the luxury classes, and it is well known that bacon prices had increased.

Most of these increases about which I am talking were up to August last. What is the position to-day? I made a little check of my own to-day and it is a first-hand check as I went into a shop and priced the cuts there. These were the prices I was given. Streaky 3/6, back rashers 3/11, neck 3/-. There is one establishment where the best smoked is selling at 4/1. So there is bacon. It is a luxury and prices have increased steeply. Let us then take sausages. Pork sausages were handed over at about 2/- a lb. in 1947-48. They were about 2/- or a little less all through 1947. According to the official statistics, they had risen to 2/2 per lb. in 1950. At the moment sausages are 2/8 per lb. and in one shop they were 2/10 per lb.

The last item which used to be considered for the breakfast table is eggs. The price of eggs, as the Parliamentary Secretary has reminded me, fluctuates, but it is interesting to note that in November of any year of the four years I have taken, the price of eggs has been higher according to official statistics under the Coalition Government than in 1947. In November, 1947, they were 4/5 per dozen; in November, 1948, 5/2¾d. per dozen; in November, 1949, 5/0¼d. per dozen and they are 5/6 per dozen to-day. So, there is breakfast for you. As far as breakfast is concerned, can the Parliamentary Secretary say that the cost of living has not gone up when you take the quantities consumed and the rise in every item? As I say, you must consider that there has been a rise in the price of such controlled items as tea and sugar, because the black market off-the-ration prices must be taken into account as well as the controlled price which has not been improved upon by this Government. Now let us come to dinner.

Captain Cowan

On these figures, the official statistics, it is quite true to say that the price of meat was up by August last. The price of meat was controlled and the price went up, following an Order, in March, 1948. Not only did meat prices go up but in 1948 also the price of boiling fowl went up. It increased from 2/- to 2/4 per lb. I know there was the question of the butchers and meat prices and, again, as in regard to milk, the Government has not been able to solve either party's problem.

It is quite clear from the newspaper reports, which I will deal with in a moment in another connection, that I am not exaggerating the situation when I say that. Now I shall give the Parliamentary Secretary a bright spot. Potatoes are an important item and potatoes, like pigs' heads, have shown a fluctuation that perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can claim as satisfactory. The price of potatoes last August of 2/6¼d. is greater than the price when the Government assumed office but, in fairness to them, one must admit that the price varied in between the years. The fact is that potato prices fluctuate. This Government have left the price of potatoes to that fluctuation and where the economic factors have operated to reduce the price the housewife has got the benefit but when you look at the figure you simply see fluctuation, and I do not think that one can claim that there has been a contribution to either a reduction in the cost of living or an increase in the cost of living looking at it from an average point of view over the last few years. So that potatoes can hardly be invoked by the Parliamentary Secretary to justify his very extraordinary statement in opening this debate.

Very often it was not either butter or margarine. Very often they had no spread.

Major de Valera

The Deputy forgets that this country weathered a war emergency very much better than practically any country in Europe and that to-day and for the past two years, under allegedly peace-time conditions, conditions in which the Taoiseach was legislating for peace, this is the picture you have.

I have dealt with the increase in the price of flour. I forgot fish. Fish is also interesting. This shows also an increase in price, where any changes are indicated. The official returns for kippered herrings show a slight increase in price; fresh herrings are steady, but cod steaks are up. In October, 1950, under the heading "Commodity price rises", the Irish Independent reported that cod, hake and haddock advanced from 2/2 to 2/8 per lb.

Mr. Keane

A lot of codology.

Major de Valera

I do not think a lot of people who have to face this problem, in the cities anyhow, would regard this as a lot of codology. As regards cheese, according to the returns for November, 1947, to February, 1948, the average retail price was 2/1½. Cheese is shown in the Trade Journal as remaining at that price in 1948 and 1949, but it increased by a farthing per lb. in February, 1950. It was then 2/1¾ and it rose to 2/2 in May. Lard remained steady. Black and white pudding went up 4d. a lb. since decontrol. Grapefruit and oranges were also up. So far as the figures available to me are concerned, they show that grapefruit used to be controlled at 8d. a lb., but now grapefruit are 8d. or 9d. each. Oranges were 6d. to 8d. a lb. and they are shown in some lists at 7d., when controlled, but at the moment they are 10d. a lb. Sweets also went up.

With regard to bus fares, these were increased to a minimum of 2d., and the Minister hoped to collect £750,000 through that means. Other transport has gone up. Clothing, footwear, blankets and socks, soap, haircuts and laundry—every one of these items represents an increase in the cost of living and they show an increase prior to August last.

By way of further convincing the Parliamentary Secretary that all these increases have not suddenly occurred, I will give him some instances. I suspected from his approach to this matter on the last day that he was trying to stave off certain things he was not too optimistic about. I would like the House carefully to observe the rake's progress. I will not go too far back. I will go to August, 1948, and I will show what happened in the two years up to August, 1950. This is the period in which, according to the Parliamentary Secretary, the cost of living did not rise. In the newspapers on 26th August, 1948, it was reported that harvest tea was going to cost 5/- per lb.

Mr. S. Collins

Cheaper than 30/-.

Major de Valera

On the 16th August of the same year there was a higher price for bread. On November 10th, 1948, the Minister could hold out no promise to increase rations. By 17th November, 1948, according to the Irish Independent, the Labour Party were out to seek a meeting with the Government on this matter. That was two years ago, and look at what you have got! In May, 1949, a union official is reported as saying that the Government plan for living costs was unknown. On 29th July, 1949, there was an announcement of off-the ration black market tea at 5/6 a lb., and 6/6 for China tea.

On 16th August, 1949, there was an increase in the price of bacon, and that was the heading of an Independent story. On 18th August, 1949, the Independent had an editorial on the price of bacon in which it said:—

"It seems now that the more bacon we get the more we shall be required to pay for it."

On 21st September, 1949, the Irish Independent said: “Shoe repairs may cost more.” On 23rd September, 1949, the Irish Press reported the cost of living up a point. On the same day a deputation from the Irish Housewives' Association was advocating action — that was in the Irish Times. They were complaining about various prices which were set out in the report. All this is apropos of the Parliamentary Secretary's allegations. On 3rd October, 1949, the Independent said that petrol was likely to cost more. On the same day fertiliser prices went up, in spite of an undertaking by the Minister for Agriculture that they would not.

On 5th November, 1949, the price of flaked oatmeal went up. On the 23rd November, 1949, the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union secretary was pressing for action—that is just over a year ago. On 24th November, 1949, there was a heading, "Petrol to go up 2d. a gallon." On 1st December, 1949, Deputy Dr. Brennan asked in the House whether the Minister would take drastic steps to protect the public against persistent inflation, and the Minister gave a reply.

On 14th January, 1950, tyre prices increased and on the 20th January, 1950, I read a heading, "Coffee prices soar to record level." On 22nd January, 1950, there was a forecast that shoe repairs would go up and on the same date also coffee was reported to be 4/6 a lb. About the same time consideration was being given to the porridge problem. On the 2nd February, 1950, we saw the report: "Leather up; dearer boots, shoes and repairs". On the 25th February, 1950, unrationed tea went up 6d. a lb. to 6/-. The Irish Independent reported on 23rd March, 1950, that the trade unions were again pressing about the cost of living.

The Irish Independent on the 1st April, 1950, have a news item with the heading: “Living Cost Increase”. On the 11th April, 1950, there is a heading: “Living Costs Going Up”. On the 18th May, 1950, the Irish Times writes an editorial on the question of living costs and deals with meat in particular. On the 20th May, 1950, the Irish Times has an article on meat in which it says:—

"Lamb, which is not controlled, is out of the question for most families. It, too, is of an inferior quality, though there has not been so much candour about this as there has been about beef. Mutton, at 4/- a lb., is also something to be thought twice about. Inferior in quality also, it has the added disadvantage that it shrinks remarkably in cooking, so that a joint of 5 lb. can result in a roast which will yield about 2¼ lb. of edible meat."

And the same day there is a report of the price of bacon up.

Mr. S. Collins

She must be a bad cook.

Major de Valera

The Times Pictorial of the week ending 27th May, 1950, have a story headed: “Irish Food Costs More When Eaten in Ireland”. Mind you, this is all by friends of Fine Gael—whatever about the other Parties which comprise the Government. On the 3rd June, 1950, we read the heading: “Bacon Prices Go Up Again”. The Irish Independent carries an editorial on the 3rd June, 1950, on the cost-of-living index figure and it makes this comment— which it may well do, too:—

"The point is of major consequence"—

referring to the cost of living —

"because the present Government will be judged mainly on its success or otherwise in bringing down the cost of living."

Yet, here is the Parliamentary Secretary claiming as a great achievement that he held it steady to August—and apparently he is afraid to talk about the present moment. It is a sad change. On the 3rd June, 1950, we read in the Irish Times:—

"Nearly everybody, except perhaps the extremely rich, has to admit and deplore the rising cost of living. Without doubt, everything is dearer than it was a short few months ago."

That was printed on the 3rd June—and that was before August.

Deputy Cowan and Deputy A.P. Byrne were exercised about the problem on the 7th of June last. I do not think they will admit that the problem has only developed since August. The reference will be found in a question reported in columns 1389/40 of the Official Report, Vol. 121, of that date. On the 20th June, 1950, the Housewives' Association Annual Report stated that the hope that the cost of living would show a downward trend this year had been shattered in recent months, and it goes on to complain. On the 23rd June the official information showed an increase in the index figures for the cost of living which was 102 in May. Also, on the 23rd June, the Irish Times carried a story: “Workers Entitled To More Than Pigs' Heads.”

Mr. S. Collins

How are we going to bring it down? Will you tell us?

Major de Valera

On the 24th June the Times has a heading: “No Hope Of Reduction In Food Costs.” On the 1st July civil servants were pressing for a cut in prices. On the 5th July the Congress of Irish Unions hits at the two-price ration system, and the Irish Times carried a story on the 15th July—I think referring to the same thing—“Two-Tiered System Of Food Prices Deplored.” On the 18th July, 1950, haircuts up.

Mr. S. Collins

How about shaving?

Mr. Briscoe

That did, too.

Major de Valera

On the 27th August, 1950, the Trade Union Congress chief, Mr. Sam Kyle, commented on the cost of living—a big increase in the last three months. On the 29th July, 1950, we read that tyres and tubes will cost more.

Mr. S. Collins

On the 29th November, 1950, Deputy de Valera——

Acting-Chairman (Mr. M. O'Reilly)

Order!

Major de Valera

On the 11th August—blankets and socks up. The Irish Independent forecasts, on the 30th August, that footwear prices may increase——

Mr. Briscoe

Again.

Major de Valera

Again. The Irish Transport and General Workers' general president is again complaining of the cost-of-living confidence trick — as well he might—on the 20th September, 1950, as reported in the Irish Press. The Irish Press of 29th September, 1950, reports that the price of oil is going up. Mr. Alan P. Dempsey, outgoing president, at the Annual Delegate Meeting of the Irish Conference of Professional and Service Association in Dublin is reported in the newspapers of the 9th October, 1950, as concerned about the rise in the cost of living. That is significant.

Soap: Lever Brothers announce increases in the price of soap on the 11th October, 1950. Then, on the 20th October, 1950, the Irish Independent, referring to tenders for Grangegorman Hospital Board, has a story concerning increased prices, and showing “Commodity Prices Rise” as the heading. At the end of the month, the 31st October, the Labour Party is concerned at rising prices and on the 30th October even the glass of whiskey had gone up by 2d.

Mr. S. Collins

It had gone up by 8d. the last time we heard about it.

Major de Valera

I have already referred to sugar. Margarine was reported up 2d. on the 12th November, 1950. In the face of that mass of evidence I find it very hard to understand how the Parliamentary Secretary can try to represent that the cost of living remained static to August and, by implication, suggested that there is no problem in that matter. The sad fact is, as I have said already, that the Government have largely ignored the problem. They have concentrated on trying to hide the rise in the cost of living in the official statistics. They have made use of devices which are equivalent to taxation. The making of the unrationed sugar, through its price, pay a large portion of the subsidy on the rationed price is simply a taxation device. This system has the added advantage of masking the effect on the index and if that index to-day is not a true indication of the cost of living it is entirely due to the devices adopted by the Government. Even in spite of all those devices, that index itself shows a rise in the cost of living. What action has the Government taken? It is all right for the Government to be talking about the rise in the cost of living and about doing something. They have appointed a commission. How many commodities were decontrolled by them since the 1st January, 1949? Labour is talking about price control.

Mr. Hickey

And we have good reason to.

Major de Valera

But on Wednesday, 22nd November, 1950, the answer was given to Deputy Lemass that commodities subject to price control on the 1st January 1949, which had been released from control since, were: Bacon; beef sausages; biscuits; black and white puddings; bicarbonate of soda; canned fish; coffee and coffee preparations; copper sulphate; cornflour; cube sugar; dried figs; enamelled hollow ware; footwear; grapefruit; honey; maize meal; meat meals and meat and bone meals; oranges; onions; peas, dried and canned; pork sausages; rice; sausage meat; soaps, soap powders, soap flakes, soap chips; sole leather; sultanas and currants; tallows and greases; timber—home grown—standing and in the log; whiskey, gin, brandy. In other words, the Government is simply letting these things work themselves out as well as they can, instead of doing anything about them. They have been simply letting go what responsibility they have had in the matter. What is the official attitude of the Government to-day? They started, before they came into office, with rather extravagant promises, of which I can quote a few.

"We advocate a scheme of subsidies of essential commodities as a step to alleviate the burden of the cost of living."

The figures I am giving will show whether that is right or not—the official figures in the journal. On the 7th February, 1950, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, as reported in the Irish Times, takes the line that there has been no increase in the cost of living. That is February last—a Labour Minister says there has been no increase. In the Dáil on the 23rd March, 1950, the Taoiseach refers to reductions in a number of items as being reductions in the cost of living, but I am afraid that laminated springs, nuts and bolts, sheet glass, varnishes, putty and similar materials will hardly weigh very much with the housewives in comparison with the rising cost of the commodities which I have already given. On the 25th May last—listen to this for the attitude of the present Government — on the Vote for Industry and Commerce the Minister for Industry and Commerce said this—and you can relate this back to the figures I have already given you over that period — referring to the unions: —

"They must, I submit, agree that the present retail prices situation, while deserving of the close attention and concern it receives from the Government, gives cause for a high degree of satisfaction."

I wonder will many Deputies supporting the Minister subscribe to that opinion. It is indicative of the attitude of the Government—a certain amount of wishful thinking. Then we have the rather extraordinary spectacle—I have already referred to it on the debate on the Taoiseach's Estimate this year—of the Minister for External Affairs at this late stage telling the housewives to do the job themselves. So that is the attitude of the Government.

Now, I have, I admit, taken considerable time in developing certain facts for the benefit of the House, and I have done so objectively. I have made no statement which I have not substantiated with figures, as I realise that this thing is a problem which is not easy of solution. It is a problem which has been aggravated very largely by the Government's approach to it. In the first instance, they secured office on the tide of irresponsible promises, promises to reduce the cost of living and to do very many other things. I grant that they did make certain adjustments in taxation, but they are collecting more in taxation than ever before and at the end of three years they are less favourably placed than they were in the beginning. The cost of living has risen out of control on them and all they do is set up another commission, just as they did when emigration went out of control. They have shifted their ground now, to try to maintain that the index remains steady and the plight to which they have been driven is well shown by the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary, when introducing this Bill, resorted to relying on data published in Reynold's News. Reynold's News and the comparison with England is now to be the basis of our computations — but even there his figures can be controverted. He says.—

Even if he drives a car—many travellers must drive a car as part of the expenses of their trade—there is a further increase in that regard. Not only are there increases in prices at home for these unfortunate people, but there are increases outside directly due, directly attributable, to the device adopted in cold blood by this Government of having off-ration commodities at black market prices coupled with a withdrawal of permits and allowances so as to compel these establishments to buy at such prices, therefore compelling the consumers in these establishments to buy at such prices.

Institutions have very much the same story. Formerly special allowances were made but now these institutions have to buy at higher prices. However, I will leave the development of that particular subject to other Deputies who have more specific and detailed knowledge of the working of school meals and hospitals and the like. I have not got the figures but I would like to see them because I suspect that if one examined the figures for some of our big institutions one would find that the cost of maintaining an inmate or patient had risen quite markedly in the last three years. That in itself is a very good indication of the rise in the cost of living and a direct answer to the thesis that the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to sustain in this House.

Wholesale prices also confirm the trend. Up to this I have dealt with retail prices. I have here a list of wholesale prices and the wholesale prices will, of course, be reflected in the retail prices. In addition to the decontrolled items I have mentioned already as increasing in price between 1949 and 1950, here is a list of commodities — I will not give all the prices in detail——

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Let us have them.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy O'Higgins wants them.

Major de Valera

These are real increases to the housewife. I was not able to get the retail prices because the R.G.D.A.T.A. people do not publish anything but controlled prices, but, as I say, the retail prices will reflect the wholesale prices. If Deputies are being embarrassed, let them blame Deputy O'Higgins, who, as a city T.D., is very interested in the rise in the cost of living which has taken place under the Government he supports and which was put into office to implement his promises, in common with those of the Parliamentary Secretary and others, to reduce the cost of living.

Mr. Briscoe

He is going to bring down the rates as well.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

We did.

Mr. Briscoe

You did not.

Major de Valera

We will take Bisto first. In 1949, Bisto was 1/3 per dozen and in 1950 it is 1/8 a dozen. Baking powder was 1/9 as against 1/10½d.

And then I open the Independent again reporting last day's debate and I find: “No increase in the cost of living Dáil told.” That is the evidence. I have gone into it in some detail in order to try to get the facts before us, because let every one of us realise that there is a problem there and it might have been better for this Government had they realised that, at the time they were making extravagant promises, they were largely contributing to making the problem unmanageable for themselves.

Deputy Larkin has suggested certain approaches. The trouble is that some of his approaches are one-sided and he has not taken all the factors into account. The remedies, whatever they are, will not be completely efficacious, one can be fairly certain. It will be impossible to deal with any such problem in a perfect way, if it is regarded singly and, when all the factors entering into the economic situation are taken into account, the best that any Government can do is to strike a balance. These difficulties, however, are no excuse for not doing something, for not taking some positive line.

My complaint against the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary is that, first, they made extravagant and unfounded promises based on misrepresentation. The statistics now available show us that most of the allegations they then made about the cost of living were unfounded. Following that spate of injudicious promises, they got into office and allowed things to drift. They now seek to evade the problem by setting up another commission. Whereas the Fianna Fáil Government, within a matter of months, could face up to doing the unpopular thing, this Government cannot make up their mind to tackle the problem and they throw it over on an advisory body, and all the time the problem mounts. What is worse, they are not even getting the benefit of their excuses for inaction. Take the question of milk. The consumer has to pay a slightly increased price, but the producer is obviously not being satisfied. In the case of meat, there is the consumer and butcher again. While they are allowing things to drift in that way, they are further trying to bluff their way through on the lines the Parliamentary Secretary adopted in opening this debate, and, in fairness to the Parliamentary Secretary, they are only the lines indicated to him by the Taoiseach and members of the Government before him.

I might finish on this note, that we are facing a difficult period. It is going to be a difficult period whether the world situation is going to result in another war, or whether the world is able to avoid that calamity. In these circumstances, there is only one thing for a small country such as ours to do, generally speaking, and that is to set itself out to be as self-reliant as possible, and to embark on some defined policy which is coherent in all its aspects and co-ordinated. That the present Government has demonstrably and lamentably failed to do, and, because of that failure, things are being allowed to drift.

As I mentioned before, that drift is dangerous for us. The symptoms are there. My own fear is that, as things get worse in the world, our drift will bring us into an unfavourable situation, and will leave us less able, as time goes on, to face the problems that we should have faced and could have tackled, to some extent, if necessary, if we had tackled them in time. There is always the danger that you can get into a position where the situation will get so out of hand that there will be no useful remedy or choice left to us. That is what we should avoid. It is what we should do our best, objectively, at all costs to avoid. The tendency of this Coalition, which is a tendency characteristic of all Coalitions, is to evade its responsibility, to try and avoid a problem and to try and explain it rather than to tackle it. That is an extremely dangerous thing for us in present circumstances. It can be an extremely dangerous thing if our defence problem, in its broadest aspect, mounts to higher proportions. A Coalition is always in a weak position, I grant you, but it is going to be of little consolation for everybody if these problems are not tackled and the situation gets further out of control. The setting up of commissions will not answer anything.

We are not quarrelling with the index but we are quarrelling with the fact that you have taken items out of the index.

Mr. Cosgrave

There has been no interference with it, good, bad or indifferent.

Major de Valera

You do not include unrationed goods.

Mr. Cosgrave

Unlike Deputy Lemass, who took beer and tobacco out of it, we took nothing out of it. It is exactly the same as it was.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

That falsehood was nailed already by the Minister for Industry and Commerce when the allegation was made earlier by Deputy Lemass. Deputy de Valera, if he intends being as fair-minded about the matter as he would have us believe, will, I think, at least accept the assurance of a Minister of this State when he dealt with that particular allegation already. However, the fact is that the bulk of the complaints from Deputies on both sides of the House has been against the method of calculating the cost-of-living figure as based on the present index. I want Deputies to bear in mind that that method was laid down by Deputy Lemass in the year 1947. If it is an unreliable index, if the method of calculation is faulty, the blame rests on the shoulders of Deputy Lemass. I agree fully with Deputy Larkin when he referred to the cool impudence of Deputy Lemass coming into the House on this debate to criticise the methods of compiling the cost-of-living index.

We should remember also, as Deputy Larkin pointed out, that, up to the present, whatever method of price control was in operation was a system of price control also laid down by Deputy Lemass when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce and I think that it will be found that whatever complaint is to be made by Deputies on this side of the House against the Government will be because they believe the Government may not have been quick enough in altering the system laid down by Deputy Lemass and his colleagues in getting away from the Fianna Fáil method of price control. However, I have wandered somewhat from the point I was making and possibly that is due to the well-timed intervention of Deputy de Valera.

The point I want to make is that there are two ways of effectively reducing the cost of living. One is by actually reducing the cost of goods which are to be purchased by various individuals. The other is by increasing the income of the consumers and increasing their capacity to purchase. No matter what Fianna Fáil Deputies may say in this House, there is no doubt that since the change of Government in February, 1948, practically every section of the community have had their income increased, have been put in a better position to buy commodities, and also have had many commodities made available to them which were not there in the days of Fianna Fáil. Therefore, it is true to say, and I do not think any Deputy will challenge it, that the purchasing capacity of nearly every section of the people has been increased and increased substantially since this Government came into office. Whether it has been increased substantially enough or not, is another matter.

There are possibly many Deputies on this side of the House who will say that a sufficient increase in purchasing capacity has not taken place. However, that may be a matter on which we can agree or disagree. There can, however, be no disagreement with the fact that nearly every section of the people, for one reason or another, since the change of Government, have been in receipt of increased pay or allowances, increased incomes of one sort or another, thus increasing their capacity to purchase. If the increases detailed at some length by Deputy de Valera had not taken place and if, side by side with that, we were to have the Fianna Fáil mentality still controlling the Government in this country and were to have the Fianna Fáil mentality towards, we will say, the old age pensioners, as displayed in the motion discussed in this House in October, 1947, I think the old age pensioners would be in a very bad way indeed to-day. They have already received under this Government substantial increases in the allowances paid to them and other benefits, such as modification of the means test, which go further to increase the allowances. Despite Fianna Fáil opposition which has already been displayed in some quarters, it is quite clear that it is the intention of this Government to see to it that they get further allowances of a substantial nature.

Mr. Timoney

Is that a promise?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The same is true of the Army. The rates of pay in the Army have gone up since this Government came into office. The pay of the Guards has gone up and the pay of the national teachers and of civil servants has been increased. Practically every section of the community, certainly every section which draw their pay or allowance from the State, have had increases of a substantial nature since the people got rid of the Fianna Fáil Government. In addition to that, taxation has been reduced by something like £6,000,000 a year. I am sure it is true, as Deputy de Valera said, that more money is being paid into the Exchequer from the existing taxes. Instead of being a point on which he can condemn the Government, I think that is a further indication of the fact which I have mentioned, that there is more money available, that people have more money, and that they have more goods on which to spend that money.

Deputy de Valera referred to a number of commodities. He referred at some length to the question of meat. I should like to remind Deputies that, when the present Minister for Industry and Commerce was fighting on behalf of the consumer against increases in the price of meat, he was being stabbed in the back every second week in this House by Fianna Fáil Deputies. I challenge them to deny that. The Fianna Fáil attitude was that the price of meat should be allowed to go up and that a greater profit should be allowed to the butchers. It may be that they are quite sincere in that, that they feel that the butchers are not making sufficient profit and should be allowed to make more. Whether they are sincere or not, it certainly is not fair for a Fianna Fáil Deputy to come into the House on this debate and criticise the Government in connection with meat, having regard to what undoubtedly has been the Fianna Fáil policy and attitude in respect of that commodity at any rate.

Let us remember also the outcry raised in this House by Fianna Fáil Deputies, particularly the Deputy from County Dublin, regarding the price of tomatoes. There, too, Fianna Fáil did its level best to try to get the Minister for Agriculture to allow the price of tomatoes to be increased. With regard to butter, which was dealt with at length also by Deputy de Valera, it is appropriate to recall that during the Fianna Fáil days the ration of butter was 2 ozs. per week. At present the ration is 8 ozs., a difference of 6 ozs. in the ration which each individual is entitled to get.

Deputy de Valera also dealt with the increase in bus fares as a matter reflecting on the real cost of living. I agree with him that it does.

But I also remember the fact that this question of bus fare increases was discussed at some length here and I remember the point of view put forward by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in these discussions. I think all of us recollect the appalling picture which he painted of the concern known as Córas Iompair Éireann, and the appalling condition in which it was left when Fianna Fáil went out of office. I do not think there was one voice raised in Fianna Fáil or any other section in the Dáil when the increase in bus fares was being discussed in years past, which, in face of what the Minister for Industry and Commerce said, was able to voice opposition to the increase in bus fares. None of us liked it but we all recognised at the time, and I still recognise, that it was necessary to increase the bus fares. It is all very well for Deputy de Valera or any other Deputy in the Opposition Benches to turn turtle at this stage for the sake of winning a political trick in debate here on a discussion on a Bill dealing primarily with the cost of living.

Remember that there are a great number of other discussions in the course of the year and in nearly all of those discussions we find Fianna Fáil Deputy after Fianna Fáil Deputy, standing up here and subsequently going out to the crossroads advocating increased expenditure by the Government. We find Deputy McCann saying that the Government are not building half enough schools and that millions more should be rolled out to pay for the new schools which he desires. We have Deputy de Valera and Deputy Traynor advocating a bigger Army to cost more; and, in addition to that bigger Army, it is to be better paid than it is to-day, and more and heavier equipment and armaments are to be rolled into this little country. We find nearly every Fianna Fáil Deputy with some pet subject on which he wishes to see more money spent.

Deputy Lemass, when he was talking at Synge Street last August or September, even held out that the Fianna Fáil social security scheme would have been bigger, better and more costly than that envisaged by the present Government in the White Paper. We hear, too, that Fianna Fáil Deputies—I think Deputy Briscoe is one of them—who, since the change of Government, have adopted the viewpoint that a great deal of the rates levied by local authorities are levied in respect of matters which could more properly be borne by the Central Government. I wonder do the Deputies opposite appreciate that, when they talk of spending millions and millions more money, all of which is to come out of taxation, because they have gone on record in a very definite way as being opposed to governing, as they say, on borrowed money, putting this country into pawn and so on, and have made it quite clear that all these millions of pounds which are to be spent on Fianna Fáil schemes are to come out of direct taxation—I do not think any of them will be able to contradict that —I wonder do they appreciate that if the Fianna Fáil policy were adopted a very great increase must take place in the cost of living and taxation must soar to something in the neighbourhood of £10,000,000 or probably very much more than that. Taxation must increase and, in addition to that, let us assume these sections of the community that I have mentioned are relegated back to the Fianna Fáil way of things, that the Army go back to the Fianna Fáil rates of pay, that the Garda go back to the Fianna Fáil rates of pay, that the old age pensioner goes back to the Fianna Fáil rate of allowance and the civil servants and the teachers go back to the Fianna Fáil rate of pay, visualise then the situation under a Fianna Fáil policy.

I am assuming, I may be too charitable, but I am assuming that they are quite sincere and honest about all this and that they want to increase taxation on the one hand and to get back to the Fianna Fáil rock in relation to pay on the other hand. Then we would, indeed, be in a mess, and the cost of living would be such that no one would be able to bear up under it. I think it is quite unfair to make the criticism of the Parliamentary Secretary which was made by Deputy de Valera and by Deputy Lemass that he is claiming that the cost of living has not gone up. He has not done that. He has claimed that up to August of this year there was no substantial alteration in the cost-of-living index figure and I do not think that any Deputy opposite will challenge that. I certainly will not try to make out the case that the cost of living has not increased. It has increased. In so far as the cost of commodities, at any rate, is concerned, prices have risen in respect of a number of commodities. But I do make the claim, and I make it in all sincerity, that by virtue of the policy and the action of this Government people are in a far better position to-day to withstand price increases than ever they were under Fianna Fáil and that, despite increases in prices, I have no doubt that many sections of the people, if not most of them, are better off than they were under the Fianna Fáil Government, even in the days immediately before or six to eight months before the General Election of 1948, and certainly substantially better off than they were during the days of the Wages Standstill Order.

With regard to Section 3 of the Bill, I cannot see why Deputies opposite are so vigorous in their opposition to the setting up of an advisory body, or committee, to inquire publicly into price increases. I know that so far back as January, 1947, when this question of rising prices was discussed, I think it was on a motion of the Labour Party, that Deputy Lemass, who was then Minister for Industry and Commerce, even then opposed any alteration in the Fianna Fáil system of price control. He now says that the idea of this advisory committee to inquire in public into increased prices is a hastily devised one, that it is some kind of innovation which the Government have thought up in order to satisfy or buy-off Labour Party criticism. I just want to place on record the fact that in the discussion on the control of price motion which took place in this House on the 23rd January, 1947, the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, General Mulcahy, discussing the question of prices, advocated that the Government should do precisely what the Government are proposing to do now.

My only regret is that this step was not taken six or eight months ago. I have no criticism whatever to offer in respect of the period before that, but I think that public confidence and the public mind in relation to prices generally would have been eased if some months back the Government had adopted the idea of allowing these matters to be inquired into in public. As I say, that was advocated by Deputy General Mulcahy as far back as the 23rd January, 1947. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that it is important that the personnel of the committte when it is established should be such as will inspire public confidence. I think also that the mere fact of allowing this examination to take place in public will have very beneficial results. I agree with remarks made the other night by Deputy Larkin regarding the system of price control as it was operated by Fianna Fáil and as it was continued in operation up to the present. Even when people were not being adversely affected by increased prices, they knew nothing whatever about the method of examination which ultimately enabled this commodity or that commodity to go up in price. Deputy MacEntee when he was writing in the Sunday Press about a year ago explained that a number of commodities go up in price because of circumstances over which no one in this country has any control.

The ordinary person paying an increased price does not appreciate that or, at any rate, he never bothers thinking about it and the whole Fianna Fáil plan of campaign in relation to this Bill is to try to conceal from the people that there are commodities which have increased in price, and which may increase in price in future, over which the Government, whether it be an inter-Party Government or a Fianna Fáil Government, have no control whatever. At least, I believe it will have certain beneficial results if the people who are affected directly by these increased prices understand why an increase has to be made or permitted. If, on the other hand, there is anything in the nature of excessive profiteering, there is no place like the open to show that up and the mere threat of holding these inquiries in public will, I think, act as a very great deterrent to those who would seek to make excessive profits in business or industry.

I want, and I am doing this quite sincerely, to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister for the excellent manner in which they have tackled this general question of the cost of living over a period of nearly three years, at a time when the only policy which Fianna Fáil could offer to the people was to increase the taxes on beer, tobacco and entertainments.

Despite the fact that this Government, before they were a month in office, remitted these taxes, they did hold, until August of this year—and there is no doubt about it, at any rate working on the cost-of-living basis— the cost-of-living figure steady from the time they took over. They did that without having recourse to the Fianna Fáil Supplementary Budget tactics of imposing increased taxes on beer, tobacco and entertainments. They did that despite the fact that they were able to reduce income-tax and give the various wage increases to which I have referred. I think that that was no mean achievement. I think the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government generally are entitled to be congratulated on the work which they did in that respect.

It is perfeetly fair political tactics for Fianna Fáil Deputies to criticise the Government because of any increases that have taken place, but if Fianna Fáil Deputies would care to read everything Deputy Lemass had to say on the subject in January, 1947, both in the Seanad and in the Dáil, they will find an answer to a great deal of the criticism which they made here last week and which they are making here to-day. I do not propose referring to any long quotations on the subject, but Deputy Lemass commenced his speech in the Dáil on the 23rd January, 1947, by pointing out that the problem of price control was not a simple problem or was not a problem that could be solved overnight. I would recommend to Deputy Lemass and other Deputies that they might accept that as true to-day, just as it was true in 1947, and to approach this discussion with the object of endeavouring to assist the Government to contain the rising prices, rather than merely use the debate for the purpose of scoring political hits at their opponents. If political hits are to be scored, they can be scored just as easily one way as the other, but I think many Deputies on this side, and the Parliamentary Secretary when he is concluding, will be in a position to give just as much as has been taken from the opposite benches.

As I say I am not going to try to make the case that there have not been price increases. There have been price increases but the people of the country generally have been put in a much better position to withstand these price increases than they were in the Fianna Fáil days. Finally, I should like to say also that the Government and the Minister are to be congratulated on the fact that despite the increases in price which have taken place, there is no doubt whatever that, in relation to many other countries in Europe, this country has been placed in the last few years in a much more favourable position. Production, industrial and agricultural, has increased enormously. The national income has increased. Workers' earnings have increased. The cost of living here is considerably lower than it is in most other European countries and I think a very great deal lower than it is even in Great Britain. I have not got the actual figures before me at the moment.

That situation has been arrived at because you had a Government in office which, instead of displaying the weaknesses of coalitions, about which Deputy de Valera appeared to know so much, was broadly representative and represented all sections of the people. If the Fianna Fáil Government had continued in office I think the situation for most people here would be deplorable to-day. The fact that this Government has done so well, without increasing taxation, is really what is annoying Fianna Fáil speakers.

Fianna Fáil Deputies, as I have pointed out, have sought very much more Government spending. They want more money spent on this, that and the other and they want it all to come out of taxes. This Government have adopted a different attitude. In my opinion, at any rate, they have been very sane and reasonable in their approach to the question of production and the question of Government spending generally.

I would conclude by saying that, whatever may be the Fianna Fáil attitude during the course of this debate to the proposal to establish a committee to inquire in public into the question of price increases, I would at least make this appeal to them, assuming this Bill goes through and that such a committee is established, that they should direct their efforts and energy towards inspiring public confidence in the committee rather than do the work of the saboteur when the committee is established.

Mr. Briscoe

I am rather disappointed that Deputy O'Higgins did not give us more to bite on than he has given us. I thought, during the two hours when Deputy de Valera was talking this evening and Deputy O'Higgins was rearing to go, that he had something of substance, something instructive to tell us, rather than this sort of appeal: "Do not be too unfair; do not try to score political hits; give this tribunal a chance and give it your help".

Deputy O'Higgins was not in the House in 1947. If Deputy O'Higgins had been here in 1947 and had heard the political hits that were scored on this very subject, he would have been rather surprised. I would recommend him to read the debates of those days so as to discover how temperate we are here in our efforts to bring to the notice of the Government, to this House and to the country the danger of the present situation, the disappointment that there must be in the realisation that what has been promised has not been accomplished and that, in fact, things have become considerably worse than they were when Fianna Fáil left office and are going to be much worse.

There are three items of importance to the vast majority of our people— food, clothing and shelter. We on these benches subscribed to that particular principle on the formation of the Fianna Fáil Party. We agreed and we laid it down as part of our policy that there were three items to which the Government must give the utmost and the first consideration because of their effect on the vast majority of our people: food, clothing and shelter.

Let us take food first. One would imagine that food subsidies existed when Fianna Fáil took office. Do the members of the Coalition groups not realise that the subsidisation of the essential foodstuffs for the vast majority of our people was a principle introduced by the Fianna Fáil Government?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Because it was necessary.

Mr. Briscoe

I will make my speech. When I have finished, get up and make yours. I am trying to instruct some of the people in this House who do not seem to have any memory and do not seem to have any regard for what is correct and what is the truth.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

We remember a lot of things.

Mr. Briscoe

If the Deputy wants to ask me a question, I will answer it. If he just wants to growl, grumble and bark over there, I will have to ignore him. The last thing I want is to be discourteous, even to an O'Higgins. It was Fianna Fáil that introduced the principle of subsidising essential foodstuffs so that the vast majority of our people would not be affected as harshly as they might otherwise be by the emergency and the war situation.

When the change of Government came, taxation was not to go up; taxation was to come down. However, the price of food for the vast majority of the people was affected by the system of limiting the ration allowance, not with regard to the availability of any particular foodstuff, but with regard to the extent to which the Exchequer would suffer by a particular subsidy. That, in our opinion, we say quite frankly, was a bad change. In our opinion, with the increased availability of foodstuffs which had been scarce in the war years, our people should have a full ration before the subsidy would be removed and, certainly, they should have a full ration before a subsidised rationed commodity would be exported in order further to help the Exchequer, not to relieve the food situation of the people at home.

I wonder will that sink into anybody as a serious principle, as a serious acceptance by this Party of the first of its commitments to the country and its people, as an acceptance by a Government of its responsibility to protect the people in relation to their food.

Now we come to clothing. I remember, in 1947, when those who are now over there of the Party that at that time was over here talked about the drapers and clothing-selling houses as racketeers and profiteers, and who said that the Minister for Industry and Commerce at that time had given them too great a margin of profit, and so forth, and who promised that they would reduce the price of clothing. Clothing is also a very important item to the ordinary individual. Is there any comparison between the price of clothing to-day and the price of clothing in 1947? Is it not obvious to everybody that, whether it is because of mismanagement by the Government or because it is out of their control, clothing is at least twice as dear to-day as it was in 1947?

I venture to say this, that had Fianna Fáil been in Government when this situation arose of a violent upheaval with regard to the increase in the price of clothing, steps would have been taken, possibly, to provide a utility garment for the people, as was done in other countries when the price of clothing went out of all proportion and out of all sanity.

Now we come to shelter. Shelter is also an important item. These miserable little appeals about what they are doing now for the old age pensioners, and so forth, are all very well, but it was Fianna Fáil that launched large-scale building of houses so that the people would have adequate shelter. Rapid progress was made in that regard up to the outbreak of the war in 1939 or 1940.

We have not yet reached the figures in relation to annual production in Dublin City that were reached in 1938 or 1939, not because the Government do not want to do it, but because it took some time to get back into the country the skilled operatives and the materials that were so necessary. It was only quite recently that these were becoming readily available. I am not going to abuse the Government if, because this mythical war which was referred to in the Taoiseach's Estimate is now recognised as a real war, the effects of it will further restrict the supplies of material; I am not going to blame them if that happens. I hope it will not happen and that they will be able to continue with the job.

I think Deputy O'Higgins does not seem to realise what Deputy Hickey will, I am sure, admit, that the rent of a house in the case of a working man is an essential item in the cost of living. Further, the fuel that is consumed in order to keep a house warm and to cook a man's meals is a very essential item in the cost of living. What is happening? We are building houses in Dublin and they are costing vastly more than in pre-war days. They are costing vastly more for a number of reasons. Working hours are gone down and the output is somewhat less —I am talking of the individual output. Materials are dearer and the cost of money is getting dearer.

Mr. Hickey

We know that that is so.

Mr. Briscoe

The cost of money is higher to-day than it was some years ago.

I will repeat, for fear it will be misstated—as it probably will be—that we on these benches do not object to better terms for the workers, and when the history comes to be written of the 16 years when we were in office, including the war years, and a comparison is made with the years the Coalition Government were in office, the working men in the future Ireland will realise that the best Government they ever had was the Government that recognised all Irish people, including the working men, as Irish citizens, and they will recognise that the best was done for them by that Government.

Mr. Davin

Yes, including very many trade unionists. We would not have that support, particularly in industrial areas such as Dublin, if we did not enjoy their confidence and if we had not proved to them that we were not prepared to abuse the trust placed in us to look after the welfare of the ordinary individual.

Deputy O'Higgins gibed across the House and he referred to me in connection with this matter and said I was one of those who stated that a certain amount of charges to be met out of the ratepayers' funds by the Corporation of Dublin and by other local authorities should properly be met out of the Central Fund; he suggested that I was therefore trying to pile up big expenditure on the Central Fund. Deputy O'Higgins is a prominent member of the Dublin Corporation and if he has not yet awakened to the fact —as I suppose happened in Cork—that the Government have been transferring to us, to pay out of rates, charges previously met out of the Central Fund under the Fianna Fáil Government, I do not know what he has been doing. That is what I am trying to get away from and I say that the Central Fund should continue honouring its obligations by meeting the charges that were previously met by them, instead of trying to put them on to the backs of the ratepayers. I wonder if there is any dispute about that statement, which is a fact? Deputy Byrne had a question down for answer on the Order Paper to-day. I want to refer to it to show how people are playing politics and how unprepared they are to face up to their responsibilities as public men. In that question—No. 42—he asked the Minister for Justice to include the local authorities under the rent restrictions control to make it possible for every tenant of the Dublin Corporation to bring the corporation, as his landlord, to court.

We have somewhere around 30,000 tenants at the moment and we shall have another 30,000 if we can continue our house-building programme for a number of years. The Dublin Corporation is not a landlord in the building or providing of houses for a profit. Dublin Corporation belongs to the citizens. It is a liability of the ratepayers. The building of houses is supported also out of rates. But Deputy Byrne wants to have the reputation of being a gentleman who wants to see every individual with his full sovereign rights. I think he would be frightened himself if it were put into effect because we would have nothing but chaos.

I want to refer to the Official Reports. I do not know to what depths this House will sink with regard to facing facts and giving honest answers. Last Thursday Deputy Cogan asked the Taoiseach a question in connection with interest charges and so forth, and in a supplementary question he asked if the State is not the ultimate source of paper money. The reference is column 1217 of the Official Report, 23rd November, 1950. I hope the Taoiseach got the message which I sent to him verbally through one of his officials to the effect that I was amazed at the answer which he gave to that question because it was not correct. I do not say it was done deliberately but if it is allowed to go unchallenged there will be no value in asking a question any more in the House. The Taoiseach said: "I might point out that State aid for local authority housing is, in effect, equivalent to the provision of interest-free loans...." That is a quibble. It is true that the State subsidises the interest charges and also gives a grant for the building of houses. However, as Deputy Hickey and Deputy McGrath and other Deputies are, I am sure, aware, there are two types of grants towards interest charges by the State. In a certain type of priority emergency matter the State gives 66? per cent. of the charge of the interest but for the bulk of the operations of the local authority in the building of houses the State gives back 33? per cent. of the interest charges to the local authority. Therefore it is unfair to let the people think that the local authority is not contributing to the cost of the interest charges. Is this another scheme as to how rates can come down?

Does this House know that every penny on the rates of the City of Dublin equals approximately £8,000 to £9,000 in income and that we are at this present moment subsidising out of the rates our housing at a cost of 3/2 in the £? Multiply 3/2 by £8,000 for every ld. and you will find that the rates of the City of Dublin at the present moment are contributing over £300,000 a year in respect of housing. Nevertheless, with that subsidy—with the grant of the corporation to the cost of building houses —with the £400 per house we get from the State towards the capital charges, and including the grant from the Government which we are not quibbling about but which we say should be properly explained instead of pretending that it is a full charge on the back of the State—with all that—we are now reaching the stage in Dublin City where the cost of a house to the ordinary working man is higher than £1, and in some cases higher than 30/-, per week, and, at the same time, he is liable to a variation in the rates because he is a ratepayer as well. What does all that mean? Does all that not mean that there is an item of cost of living which is not fully recognised in the cost of living examination?

Mr. Hickey

And which has not been for years, of course.

Mr. Briscoe

I agree. I want to say, however, that it may not have been as necessary ten years ago as now because the cost was half the price then. It is much more urgently needed to be recognised now than it ever was. In addition to that, compare the price of fuel. It is dearer to-day than formerly but it is also an essential item in the cost of living. I have never considered it worth while advocating a situation with regard to a particular cost-of-living index as compiled on certain items, because, as we know, we are all human beings and no two families— whether they are living in the same street or not—are living exactly alike. No two families have exactly the same commitments. Every family lives its own individual life in its own particular way. You cannot just draw a line and say that everybody spends 2d. on his breakfast, 3d. on his lunch, and so forth.

I did not speak in August and neither did you.

Mr. McGrath

You spoke in this House about six months ago and you said that the increases were more than counterbalanced.

Mr. Briscoe

Mr. Rooney

Yes.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Rooney was not in the House when I dealt with subsidies on rationed goods earlier. I pointed out that the subsidising of rationed goods was introduced during the war years when enough goods were not available to give an even distribution all round.

Captain Cowan

That was a war measure that was introduced in England and followed here.

Mr. Briscoe

If we had not done it there would have been a different story. The subsidising of rationed goods is different elsewhere. It depends on your own resources and your requirements of certain commodities. That, of course, is quite true. When the war was over and the emergency had ceased, there appeared to be a reasonable hope that not only would materials become more readily available but that prices would fall. It is true that the Government changed the ration in regard to certain items. Take the case of butter. It is subsidised. People get the ration at the subsidised price but they can buy all they require in addition at the non-subsidised price. That is wrong, in view of the fact that we are exporting butter. Of course, it brings about a saving to the Exchequer on the rationed and subsidised goods. I say that is all wrong. I suggest that the gentlemen who sit on the Government Front Bench, not all of them, should read the contributions they made on this matter in 1947. If they do so, I think they will adopt the line which was adopted by Deputy O'Higgins this evening when he said: "Do not try to score political hits; let there be a recognition of the position which is there, and be fair to us." I do not know whether we have been unfair, but certainly the people opposite were unfair with us.

In my opinion, the Government is not taking sufficient notice of facts as they confront us, or as they exist in the world, as the Parliamentary Secretary said. I remember that when we were discussing the Taoiseach's Estimate this year he was annoyed when Deputies on this side warned him that there was a war atmosphere, and when we begged and pleaded that certain defence measures should be taken to meet a situation which might easily arise. The Deputies on this side were quite serious in their approach on that. The only satisfaction we got from the Taoiseach was to be told that we were wasting the time of the House discussing a mythical war. Now, the Korean war presents us with a really serious situation. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to it at least three times in the course of his speech. Some people may have believed last week that the American troops would be home by Christmas. It looks now as if they will not, and that the situation there is going to become much more widespread.

For starting the war.

Mr. Briscoe

Yes. Now that the war is there, at least let us recognise that it is there. Some people can read the signs, but other people have to see an actual conflagration taking place before they can recognise its existence. Tin jumped from £300 to over £1,000 for the same reason. Many other items will be affected both as to price and as to supplies. The present Government will be faced with serious problems, not only in trying to keep the cost of living down as expressed in figures, but also in being able to provide for the needs of our people to save them from undue hardship as the result of a shortage of essential commodities.

We are not entirely self-sufficient. It was the intention of the last Government to make the country as self-sufficient as possible in regard to certain essentials. We started off by wanting a recognition by the people and whatever Government existed that there were three essentials—food, clothing and shelter. To the extent to which we can make this country self-sufficient in these items it is becoming more apparent as time goes on, if we value our position as an independent little unit in the world, that we should make every effort to attain that goal in the event of a situation arising such as arose some time ago, so that we can nourish ourselves without having to sell our birthright for a bit of bread. I feel that we have reached the stage where this Government have missed the boat.

Mr. Davin

The bus.

Mr. Briscoe

Whatever you like to call it. Perhaps Deputy Davin might have used his influence in this way. I said in this House two years ago, in relation to reducing the adverse trade balance, that in my opinion that would not be a good thing as time went on. If this Government, when they saw the signs looming, had bought large quantities of essential commodities, such as wool, at the then ruling price——

Captain Cowan

Kept the wool here.

Mr. Briscoe

If the Deputy listened to the Parliamentary Secretary's answer to a question to-day he would have discovered that all the wool we produce in this country is not suitable for the making of clothing and that a large quantity is exported for carpet making. The fact is that we are dependent on the importation of a great deal of wool for our requirements. If the Government had done that, instead of trying to juggle with figures to reduce the adverse trade balance, which is now increasing, we might have now under the control of the Government a sufficient quantity of wool to supply all our blanket manufacturers for the next five years at the then ruling price and the Government could not be accused of buying for the sake of making a profit.

We are living in a State where we are operating all kinds of normal time controls. This is the time when people should be allowed to bring in what, in their opinion, are necessary supplies of commodities likely to diminish in quantity and increase in price as time goes on. There should be a slackening of the rigid quota control, particularly in relation to articles not made here. We hear talk about keeping prices down. It is very interesting to hear people say: "Forget about the world price of leather; let us produce our own leather at our own price and keep the price down irrespective of what it makes in the world at large." We forget that there are commodities which have an international value and that prices rise and fall.

Our main agricultural export is beef. We are selling beef to the world at our domestic price which is not comparable with prices elsewhere. We have to do that because the supply and demand situation is such that we can be squeezed into keeping to a price or our customers will not buy. From the point of view of a supplier we have not any great strength. We are, of course, important when it comes to requiring materials for our own needs. Because we are only an infinitesimal purchaser in the world markets we cannot affect the price at which we buy by refusing to buy. We have to take what the world offers at the price which rules at the time when we need goods.

Deputies who spent so much time before and during the last election abusing the Fianna Fáil Government for sins of omission and errors in regulating commodities for supply to the people are going to have a nice headache from now on mainly because they did not adopt precisely and entirely the scheme of things put into operation by the Fianna Fáil Government when the last emergency started, and by the time this emergency is over that will have to be done.

The cost of living has become a political matter because those who now occupy the Government Benches promised to reduce it in relation to the earning capacity of the people and, particularly, in relation to what they were going to have to eat and to wear and in relation to the kind of shelter they were to have. The inter-Party Government have failed miserably in keeping their promises and in keeping the people satisfied. From my contact with people I am satisfied that under the Fianna Fáil Government, even in the worst time of the emergency, the people were better off than they are to-day.

Mr. Hickey

It is regrettable that a subject like this should be dealt with in the political way in which it has been dealt with, not so much by the last speaker, as by Deputy Lemass and Deputy de Valera, Junior. It is very difficult to be patient with statements made by Deputy Lemass and Deputy de Valera, Junior, when they speak about the control of prices. We cannot forget the price control exercised by Deputy Lemass and the Fianna Fáil Government during the emergency and up to 1947. We cannot easily forget also the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Government in regard to the demands of the workers when they looked for an increase of wages to meet the soaring cost of living, due to lack of proper control of prices. We were told by the then Taoiseach that if the workers did not limit their demands for wage increases the Government would take certain action with a view to preventing that. It was interesting to hear Deputy de Valera, Junior, endorsing that attitude here last Thursday when he said:—

"When the previous Government was faced with the problem it had to face in 1947 it had the courage to make a decision and did get results."

He went on to say: "As a supporter of that Government I shall feel proud every day that I am in public life that at least we did our duty."

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What is the reference.

Mr. Hickey

I have not got the reference. I do not think it is published. He spoke here last Thursday. Let me say to Deputy de Valera and the other members of the Fianna Fáil Party that we are not unmindful of the fact that when the change of Government did take place we were able to secure an increase of 11/- in wages for the majority of the workers without any threat of Government interference. I feel proud that the leaders of the trade unions did their duty to the workers in taking a stand against the threat of the Fianna Fáil Government and the opposition of the vested interests in securing that increase in the purchasing power of the masses.

I do not agree with the Parliamentary Secretary when he states that the cost of living had not increased since August, 1947. I know he based his case on the rise and fall of this precious cost-of-living index figure, on which the wages of thousands of workers have been based for years, and on which Deputy Lemass insisted during the standstill Order on wages that our claim for the maximum bonus should be based. That index figure has never been accepted by us. With all due respect to those who introduced it first and to those who have continued to keep it in force, it is little more than a statistical fable. It does not fit the actual cost of living of a single family in either the urban or the rural areas. It contains that statistical assumption, a fair average. That cost-of-living index figure is based on a series of working-class household budgets complied in 1922. Each item in this ancient document is brought up-to-date in price and calculated by statisticians. It is wrong to apply an average to thousands of people. It is assuming that the average represents the normal conditions of the majority. Every housewife must spend her own income, not an abstract average. If three housewives have incomes of £10, £5 10s. and £4 10s. respectively per week, there are two of them who will not find comfort in the statement that the average income is £6 13s. 4d.

I suggest that nothing effective can be done until we change that index figure. I have listened to Deputy Briscoe to-day. His whole contention was that things should be left as they are. He would lead one to understand that no undue profits are being made. He talked about the effective control exercised by the Department of Industry and Commerce. I have great regard for the officials of that Department and for their honesty, but the majority of the workers never had any confidence whatsoever in the price control exercised by that Department. I do not blame them for that because I listened to Deputy Lemass here in 1941 when speaking on Resolution No. 24, the excess corporation profits tax. This is what he said:

"I want Deputies to bear in mind that the existence of profits, even excess profits, is not a proof of profiteering."

During the same speech he said:

"There is that characteristic of the slave mind—it objects to the advancement of a neighbour's child. If anybody in this country promotes a new enterprise and makes good, then all the slave-minded people rise up at once to tear him down."

I could understand the position of the officials of the Department of Industry and Commerce trying to make a decision while the Minister in charge expressed that viewpoint. We had a similar case recently when the Industrial Authority Bill was introduced on the 9th March. Here is what Deputy Lemass said on that occasion:

"If we are not going to allow the profit motive to work you will either get stagnation or you must turn completely to State socialism."

Deputy Briscoe spoke in somewhat similar terms to-day. Deputy Lemass went on to say:

"This Industrial Development Authority is going to investigate the operation of protective tariffs. For what purpose? Is it going on a hunt after profits? Is it going to decide that the firm should be penalised which is making profits, even though it is producing goods of good quality and selling them at a reasonable price in relation to the price of similar goods sold in other countries?"

How could we expect confidence in the officials of the Department when the Minister expressed that viewpoint here? I say that the time has come when this Government will have to take courage and ensure that so far as price charging is concerned there is some body with the knowledge as to how it is worked out. I can give no better reason for that than this: here is a tag from an article purchased by me; the article states that the maximum price is 25/6; without asking for any reduction, the price I actually paid for that article was 19/6. In 1941 and again in 1942 I mentioned that I saw articles purchased with the controlled price marked but actually sold, without the purchaser asking for any reduction, at 2/6 less than the controlled price.

I suggest there is no effective control of either profits or prices, and it is because of that that we have disorder and dissatisfaction among the masses of our people. Deputy Major de Valera spoke for two hours. He merely quoted articles in the Press in an endeavour to score off the Government. He never suggested one thing that should be done. He merely told us we were passing through a very grave situation. Looking back now on 28 years of native government it appears to me to be years of gross and glaring injustice; men, women and children were denied a decent existence because they lacked a sufficiency of food. Money dominated everything else and no attempt worth mentioning was made to try to remedy the position. What are we to think of a system of society in which an honest and hardworking man can toil all his life at work that is socially desirable for a wage on which he cannot keep his wife and family, and then when one thinks of the worthless speculator who can amass a fortune in a few years, one wonders whether there is any justice anywhere. It is necessary to consider from the ground up the social organisation in which we are living with a view to finding out whether any change can be made for the better or whether it can be adapted to the changing needs of our time. Unless some change is made I think there is very little hope of any effective control by any Government so long as vested interests get priority over the needs of the masses of our people.

Deputy Briscoe talked about the price paid for money for housing. I often wonder why people are so fearful of referring to that matter. I know that the Cork Corporation borrowed £200,000 recently at 4 per cent. interest from the banks in order to build houses. These houses are costing anything up to £1,400. That means that the rent for interest charges alone will be over £50 a year. Will anybody suggest that is not a matter when considering the cost of living?

I do seriously suggest that the position in this country for some years past has been very far from what we expected it would have been. We listened to Deputy de Valera speaking here for about two and a half hours this evening, in his efforts to demonstrate all the defects of the present Administration, but he and his colleagues cannot shelve responsibility for the condition of affairs which developed in this country during the 15 years when they were on this side of the House as a Government. What do we find? A picture of the present conditions in the country may be drawn in this way. Imagine 100 persons, of whom two are rich, eight comfortable, 60 poor and 30 very poor—a leisured ten owning as much as the working 90. That is how the wealth of the country is distributed to-day. Of course the leisured ten, owning the Press, ceaselessly tell the people that any interference with them or any disturbance of their position would be disastrous for the country as a whole. These are the problems we have got to tackle.

I think it is hardly fair to treat the present position in the manner in which it is being treated to-day with a succession of speeches of political character in which one side tries to score debating points over the other. There is no use in telling the ordinary housewife that the cost of living has not gone up. I know that for years during the régime of the Fianna Fáil Government, when wages were pegged down, in 1943, 1944, 1945 and 1946 they did not peg down the profits made by certain people in this country. If anybody has any doubts as to that, he has only to refer to the statement made by Mr. S.T. O'Ceallaigh, the then Minister for Finance, in the Seanad in July, 1941. The case was then made that the making of extra profits could not be called profiteering, and when he was asked by a member of the commercial class in the Seanad to remove some taxes he said he could not possibly do it. He quoted the case of private company A, which had a profit standard of £10,000. It writes up its premises and goodwill, he said, by a fictitious amount of £50,000, which it credits to a reserve fund, and it then capitalises this reserve by the issue of 50,000 ordinary shares at £1 each to shareholders. He went on to describe a somewhat similar procedure in regard to private companies which he called B, C and D.

The figures which he quoted are there to be seen by anybody and they disclose the absolutely scandalous position which has been allowed to develop. Then we are told that there was an effective control of profits and prices during that period. I suggest to the Government that they should take strong and drastic action and that they should give the necessary power to this advisory body to see that profits are reduced to a fair and reasonable level. If that is done and if the workers feel that they can have confidence that the necessary efforts will be made to keep the cost of living in check, then the workers will be prepared to make any sacrifices that they may be called upon to make in the interests of the country as a whole.

Mr. Childers

In reference to this discussion on the cost of living, I want first of all to say a few words in regard to the speech made by Deputy Larkin in which he tried, in a most shameful manner, to cover up the present attitude of the Labour Party towards the Fine Gael section of the Government by blaming Fianna Fáil for having been the original cause of all the trouble. Deputy Larkin may possibly have been stung to action by the very severe defeat which his Party suffered in the local elections in Dublin, a defeat, I think, largely occasioned by the complete and absolute disappointment of the workers of Dublin at the failure of the Labour Party to carry out their election promises in regard to the cost of living. They certainly saw the writing on the wall in that election. A suggestion has been made that, during the war, in some way or other the Fianna Fáil Government allowed prices to rise too high and that even the Coalition Government, magnificent and all as they were supposed to be, had failed to bring about a reduction, largely because of the policy of the previous Administration. The position, in fact, is that Fianna Fáil achieved wonders during the war in maintaining the cost of living at the lowest possible level consistent with the circumstances. Their record was one of which the country can be proud. Prices rose only for the last few years of the war owing to the higher cost of raw materials and to the circumstances of the emergency. One of the most remarkable features of that time was the fact that from 1943 to 1946 prices remained almost stable. I admit that the price of certain commodities such as boots, shoes and clothing went up slightly but, taken as a whole, the cost of living was, in a predominant sense, pegged during the end of the war and remained pegged largely until 1946. That was a fine record, something to boast about, something that cannot be controverted or set aside by the wishy-washy nonsense of the Labour Party in regard to our being responsible for the present cost of living.

By 1946 we were in the position that out of 67 countries in the world, who record proper statistics, the cost of living had gone up less in this country than in the case of 50, had gone up about as much as in the case of seven and had gone up more than in the case of ten countries. We in Fianna Fáil are prepared to stand on that record. We are prepared to challenge anybody who questions the validity of the figures supplied by the League of Nations Economic Bureau at that time. We consider that a fine effort on our part. In the case of the ten countries, where the cost of living had gone up by a smaller amount than here, in most cases there were good reasons. Some countries for reasons of their own paid subsidies of double the amount per head of the population than we paid. For example, in the case of England, subsidies were generally running at the level of £10 per head of the population whereas they were running here at the rate of £3 to £5 or £6 per head. In these countries, however, taxation, not only of the rich but of the worker, was very much higher than here while the cost of what might be described as semi-luxury commodities, such as tobacco and alcohol, was very much higher than here. As I have said, we are perfectly satisfied to stand on that record. We claim that the standstill Order, condemned so much by the Labour Party, worked reasonably well and that along with the excess profits tax and the excess profits corporation tax imposed by the Government, it did maintain prices at a figure which could be expected having regard to the fact that there was a world war on.

In 1946, about August, prices started to rise owing to post-war inflationary conditions and they rose, if I remember rightly, about 10 per cent, from August, 1946, to August, 1947. In October, 1947, supplementary duties were imposed on various commodities and services in order to do what was being done in other countries who ran their economies intelligently, to collect the hot money that always arises after a war when money becomes released and when there are not sufficient goods upon which money can be spent. It was a perfectly normal temporary measure, designed by intelligent economists to bring about a given result. It brought about the result. The cost of living came down by about 3 per cent, if I remember rightly, within four months of its imposition and the hot money ceased to circulate in the same way.

I personally am proud that Fianna Fáil imposed those taxes. I am proud that we left office having had the courage to do something unpopular that was good. One of the interesting things about the present situation is that at last the tide is beginning to turn against the Government among people who were delighted with the fact that they were in their different ways prepared to please everyone at everyone else's expense. They have seen fit to do nothing since they came into office that could possibly appear to be unpopular to any particular section of the community. The Irish people in the long run will always respect people who are prepared to do unpopular things for the sake of the common good without having to refer to sections of the community to see whether any particular act is likely to be unpopular among them from the point of view of vote-catching. We are beginning to see the end of that régime and the sooner it comes the better for the morale of this country.

In 1948 we had a general election. The present Government succeeded in arousing what might be termed a definite hysteria amongst certain groups of people, particularly in Dublin, who came to believe quite sincerely that the cost of living was being upheld as a result of pressure brought to bear by financial interests on the Fianna Fáil Party and that the cost of living was like a bubble that could be burst if only the Fianna Fáil Government could be driven out.

I remember sitting in buses some time or other during that election or just prior to it, simply in order to hear what people were talking about because I had been told that we would have to be prepared to face very severe criticism in Dublin owing to this business about the cost of living. I remember hearing people talking in the buses about the cost of living as though it was a scandal, a really serious scandal, something about which there were liable to be astonishing revelations overnight.

It was a most successful campaign in so far as Dublin was concerned. It failed almost completely in the country parts where people have more time to reflect on the truth of such statements as are made during elections. I remember standing one evening near a tram queue. Two or three big Dodge cars passed by and the people in the queue were talking about the fellows in the cars as though they were some of the boys who were protecting Fianna Fáil, giving big money to the Fianna Fáil funds, and they were saying that they had been out during the day with their baskets, shopping, and that the cost of goods was high only because of those fellows in the big cars, that they should put them out and see what would happen. The hysteria went on and, as I have said, it was successful in Dublin among a certain number of people who, like all of us, occasionally made mistakes in judgment. We have all made them. Many of us have seen far-off green hills in our lives and bitterly regretted that we did not take a second look. These people were affected in that way.

I suppose from a purely personal selfish point of view, one of the greatest satisfactions I have had in a comparatively short political career has been to hear at last another political bomb burst in Dublin successfully. I just think of the last four or five years of political conflict and battle and remember the hysteria and the bombs bursting in 1948, when I wondered whether it would ever be possible to have another hysterical cry in Dublin aroused in some other way and perhaps at the expense of the present Government.

The bomb burst the other day. If anybody was sitting in a tram or a bus or any other public vehicle, or listening to people in queues, he would have heard the talk over again about the cost of living, and all the talk was the result of those beautiful headlines in the daily newspaper which said there had been no increase in prices. The following day, people began to wonder whether the Government had gone crazy, whether it was possible for a responsible Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce to make the bald announcement that there had been no increase in prices. Of course, you have to be awfully careful, when you speak about the cost of living, to measure words, and it is possible to make a few statements that are going to receive particular attention from the public and then to try and back out of them by making all sorts of reservations afterwards, which have no effect. That is what happened in this particular case.

The Parliamentary Secretary would have been far wiser if he had followed the course of the former Taoiseach who several times during his career was prepared to get up and speak for an hour on any matter in which he felt he had made a mistake in judgment honestly and sincerely. If the Parliamentary Secretary had simply said: "We know now that everything we said in 1948 was wrong; the prices section of the Department of Industry and Commerce had not been instructed by the Minister to disregard the accounts of businessmen who are supposed to be filling the Fianna Fáil war-chest; the cost of living, we discovered after all, could not be reduced substantially and, not having been reduced substantially, when world circumstances changed, inevitably it started to rise again; let us forget the past and let us now get on with the work and see what we can do"—if that had been the attitude of the Government, they would have received a considerable measure of support from what might be described as the floating vote, the people who are inclined to change from election to election.

But, of course, it is very difficult for the Ministers or the Parliamentary Secretaries of a Coalition Government ever to admit mistakes, particularly those that are made by the smaller Parties upon whom they rely for their support. I suppose one of the most scandalous promises made in the election history of this country was made by Clann na Poblachta when they promised to reduce the cost of living by 30 per cent. Equally scandalous is the statement made by Deputy Lehane that he still believes in some vague kind of way that it is now possible to reduce the cost of living by 30 per cent.

I think I had better repeat what I have said several times in the past— the Parliamentary Secretary can get the figures from the officials attending upon him—that if you wanted to reduce the cost of living at the moment by 30 per cent. you would have to give away free tea, sugar, bread and milk. I forget the exact quartet of commodities—I have lost them in my notes— but at least four of the principal commodities of life would have to be given away free. That would be a great election promise to make. It is possible.

The Government have already run into £12,000,000 deficit last year on the accounts. If they want to borrow £30,000,000 for the sake of subsidising the cost of living to that tune, there is nothing to prevent them doing it, if they can come here and get the support of the House and afterwards see if they can somehow bulldoze the banks to supply them with the money, if they offer a loan and it is not subscribed by a no longer gullible public. Because, as Mr. MacBride, Minister for External Affairs, could easily have discovered by one telephone call to the Statistics Branch, before the general election, the subsidy required to bring down the cost of living by 30 per cent. in 1947, would have amounted to no less than £30,000,000 more than the existing subsidies.

It was a lovely, beautiful promise to make, and apparently it did do some good to the Clann na Poblachta Party. Another consolation in my own political career was seeing the Clann na Poblachta Party getting only three out of 45 seats in the Dublin Corporation elections, instead of the 11 or 12 seats which they should have got if they received the same support as they had during the general election. There are loads of people who have not the time to study statistics, and there are some people who would not understand them or accept them. There are people who are prepared temporarily to try a new Party when a really good, thumping promise is made, whether it may be fulfilled or not. That is what happened in the case of the Clann na Poblachta Party.

I have heard references in the debate suggesting that no one should talk about the promises made during an election. Statements made off platforms during an election can be forgiven, we are told, in some way—that these are election speeches and that one can expect candidates to talk in any manner during an election. My own belief is that the world is strewn with dictatorships resulting from wild promises made and never kept, and that is true to a great extent of countries formerly governed by coalitions, where everybody is trying to win votes at everyone else's expense by promising a particular policy that they think will appeal to the electors. The people of Dublin are having an excellent post mortem examination. We can see the result of the election promises made by groups prepared to form a coalition.

Already the electors in any election have a difficult enough task to choose a Dáil. They have to consider what general policy they like best; they have to consider if some particular enthusiasm which they feel deeply about is included in a Party's policy, and whether they would not vote for another Party solely because of that enthusiasm. They have to consider whether the men at the head of a Party are good men, whether the leader of the Party is a good man. They also have to consider all the local circumstances in their constituency and, lastly, they have to consider whether they might not have to vote for some personality over and above Party considerations. It is a hard procedure for the average man to make a good choice.

On top of that, the electors have to decide, first of all, in regard to Parties, knowing every Party except the Fianna Fáil Party will have two policies, the policy they might put into operation if they got into office and the policy they will agree to put into operation if they have to form a coalition. I believe that we in Fianna Fáil can look back on the whole on a very fine record. There were no false promises. In the 16 years we were in office we had a great record in that regard. In 1932 and 1933 there were practically no plans in existence; everything had to be started from scratch. I would like any Deputy in the Government Benches to go to the files of the newspapers and to take out the official policy of Fianna Fáil, the published plans, and note the extraordinary restraint in what was promised. Very few promises were made. Occasionally one person may have said something indiscreet off a platform. One of the well-known indiscretions is said to have been made by one person, who denies having made it, that we would bring back people to work in this country. We took a long time to do it, but we did it in 1947, in our last year of office.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What is the relevancy of all this?

Mr. Childers

I am trying to relate it to the general question of making promises at election times.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is a bit of a strain.

Mr. Childers

I can, without straining the limit, relate it to the promises made by the Government Parties with reference to the cost of living. Mr. Norton, who is now Minister for Social Welfare, and whose Party lost seven seats in the Dublin Corporation election, said on 17th January, 1948:—

"The return of a strong Labour Party would be a guarantee that profiteering and high prices would be dealt with ruthlessly."

On 2nd January, 1948, he is reported in the Irish Press as saying:—

"The first task of the new Dáil will be drastic legislation to control prices and punish profiteers, to reimpose the excess corporation profits tax."

Mr. MacBride, the Minister for External Affairs, according to the Irish Press of 28th January:—

"The increased bread subsidy was provided to swell the profits of some bakeries."

We have not yet had published the report on the effect of the subsidies upon the bakery and flour business, nearly three years after the Government got into office. That was a nice statement to make. Then we had Mr. Norton at Mullingar on 29th January, 1948:—

"The excess corporation tax ought to be retained to subsidise the prices of essential commodities."

I wonder whether the Government would reimpose the excess corporation profits tax? It would mean £3,000,000 a year and if they dared to carry out the promises solemnly entered into by the Labour Party they could use that £3,000,000 to bring down the cost of some commodities. It might help them politically and tide them over the difficult period that is coming; they will be taught a lesson by the electors should they ever consult them.

Then the Minister for Defence, speaking at Clara, as reported in the Midland Tribune, on 10th January, 1948, said:—

"We advocate a scheme of subsidisation of essential commodities as a step to alleviate the burden of the cost of living."

I wonder what the Minister for Defence meant? We see no sign of an increase in subsidies. We had Dr. O'Higgins, as he then was, saying again:—

"This may mean costly subsidisation of food prices so as to help the producer and the consumer in reducing the cost of living. Such moneys can and will be found by economies in other directions where ample scope is obvious."

What is the result of that? A Budget of £106,000,000 and a deficit of £12,000,000 and no increase in subsidies. We now have a delightful subterfuge being practised by the Government in regard to existing subsidies. The public are being taught the idea that the rationed sugar at 4d. per 1b. is what the community needs in the ordinary way and only the rich buy the unrationed sugar. Very few of them know that nearly the whole cost of the subsidised sugar is being found through the profit created by the sale of unsubsidised sugar at its present price level. Dr. O'Higgins, the Minister for Defence, far from increasing the subsidy, is saving the Budget a certain sum on subsidies by collecting a subsidy from what is supposed to be the better-off section of the community, particularly in the case of sugar. What are the facts in regard to that? The facts are these: that the housewife goes for the day to a market town in her horse and trap or donkey cart; she has to have a meal in a restaurant, so she goes into a restaurant and has her meal, for which she pays quite a sizable sum. All the catering sugar for that meal is sold to her at the unsubsidised price. She pays the extra price and then she goes to the shop and buys her weekly ration of sugar-having already paid part of the subsidy for the ration out of the money paid for the restaurant meal. Further, as far as I can gather from reading the nutritional surveys, one of the commodities which is not a luxury commodity is ordinary jam. In all the families where, alas, there is still a very high proportion of bread and spread meals, jam is bought along with other things; it is one of the little luxuries people with low incomes can afford for themselves instead of having a meal of two courses, meat and so forth. The whole of the sugar for that jam is sold to the jam manufacturers at the unsubsidised price and when the housewife buys her pot of jam she is helping to pay for the subsidy on the rationed sugar. I hope that the people of Dublin appreciate these facts. They are very important, particularly when we recollect that Deputy Dr. O'Higgins, now the Minister for Defence, promised to increase the subsidies for food if he was elected to office. It is rather strange that the Clann na Poblachta Party, even though they could not bring about a reduction of 30 per cent. in the cost of living, could not at least persuade the Fine Gael section of the Coalition Government to tuck on a bit here and there in the subsidies just to create a little effect—to help the housewife over the present difficult position.

Mr. Timoney

Would the Deputy say what is wrong in principle with taking the subsidy off part of the ration?

Mr. Childers

There is nothing wrong with it in principle. It is just a scandalous breach of promise.

Mr. Rooney

Did we not raise the standard of living by 30 per cent.?

Mr. Childers

There is nothing wrong with it in principle. One can always juggle with subsidies. One can always take money out of one pocket and put it into another pocket. I am relating to the transfer that takes place in regard to the price of sugar for jam and sugar for poor persons' meals. I said it was a scandalous breach of promise.

Mr. Timoney

There is nothing wrong with that?

Major de Valera

If you pay for the subsidy through having a higher ration price, then having a subsidy on the rationed commodity is just a sham— and all shams are wrong.

Mr. Childers

Deputy Dr. O'Higgins, now the Minister for Defence, certainly let himself go on the cost of living during the election. He is reported in the Irish Press of 12th January, 1948, as having said: “The first thing to be done,” said Dr. O'Higgins at Cork, “by the new Government would be to reduce the cost of living.” Then we have Deputy Liam Cosgrave, the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach and to the Minister for Industry and Commerce—whose bombshell burst on the people of Dublin the other day: it was so grand to hear the people at last really talking against the present Government, their eyes being fully opened—reported as saying at Dún Laoghaire on 9th January, 1948: “High national expenditure was a direct contributing factor to the high cost of living.” Deputy Cosgrave's Party, as far as I know, increased the Budget to £106,000,000, and created a deficit of £12,000,000—all of which has an inflationary effect and none of which relates to the promises to reduce taxation and the general cost of Government.

The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Norton; as reported in the Leinster Leader of 31st January, 1948, said at Leixlip: “The people groan over rising prices. Wages are buying less goods every week. Malnutrition abounded and their chief exports were men and women.” I hope that the people of Dublin will remember Deputy Norton's saying at Leixlip during the election that the people were groaning over rising prices and that their chief exports were men and women.

Then again at Brownstown, the Curragh, Deputy Norton is reported in the Leinster Leader of 17th January, 1948, as having said: “The Government has got cold feet over prices control. They had dropped the new Prices Bill recently in the Dáil. The Minister had now decontrolled coal.” I hope that the people of Dublin will remember Deputy Norton's saying that the Government had got cold feet over prices control when they remember that 26 articles or commodities are no longer subject to control by the prices section of the Department of Industry and Commerce and that in nearly every case prices have risen.

I think I should quote again, because the more often it is on the records of the House the better, the statement made by Deputy MacBride, now the Minister for External Affairs, at Carlow and reported in the Leinster Leader:“Subsidies should be sufficient to bring about a reduction of at least 30 per cent. in the existing cost of food produced and consumed here and should be accompanied by a strict control of prices.”

Mr. Timoney

What is wrong with that?

Mr. Kissane

That it was not done.

Mr. Childers

Then the Government came into office. Very soon after they came into office some of the members of the Labour Party began to complain that nothing was being done to break the cost of living. One of the curious things about the Labour Party is that at one time they will defend their attitude by saying that wages went up by 10 per cent. and that the cost of living remained stable. That has been said to one section of the community. When, however, they want to appeal to another section of the community they say that they know that the cost of living has not been reduced in the way in which they believe it should have been reduced and that they are going to do something about it. The workers of Dublin are now beginning to rebel against that kind of claptrap —one voice saying: "Things are not too bad. Prices have not gone up very much. We have stabilised the cost of living. Wages have gone up by 10 per cent. in a great many industries. Therefore, you may take it that we have fulfilled our promises." While, two weeks later, at the same union meeting, you arouse a frenzy of protest by saying: "We know the promise has not been kept. We are going to do something about it because we believe the cost of living can be lowered." No Party on earth can go on behaving in that manner for any length of time: they always receive their reward from the electors—just as the Labour Party received it in the recent Dublin Corporation elections.

Mr. McQuillan

Just as Fianna Fáil got it in 1948.

Mr. Childers

And then, after the election, we had the spectacle of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Social Welfare having a nice little dispute together in the Dáil on the occasion of the debate on the Budget. It is well for the public to remember this statement, which was made by the Minister for Finance in the course of his Budget speech:—

"The substantial wage and salary increases already secured—under Fianna Fáil—by all classes of workers ... have gone as far as is possible, in present circumstances, to meet the claims of social justice, and I would make a most earnest appeal to all employees not to seek further increases. ... Recent experience confirms that the benefit of an increase in money incomes is rapidly swallowed up by rising prices."

That was the statement by the Minister for Finance in the course of his first Budget speech, and he was speaking of wage and salary increases that took place before the present Government took office.

Acting-Chairman

Can the Deputy give the reference?

Mr. Childers

I am afraid not, but it is part of the Budget speech. In the course of the same Budget debate, the Minister for Social Welfare said:—

"Present wage standards are quite inadequate to provide workers with a decent standard of living."

So one can see that from the beginning there was already some kind of clash between the two principal Parties, each of them having a different point of view towards our economy, each of them trying to put forward and into operation a different policy in regard to our economy, one policy being a deflationary economy, the other policy being increased wages for workers, possibly merited in many directions and to a certain degree, but always asked for irrespective of whether in the ultimate the result might not be a still higher cost of living.

On September 20th, 1948, Deputy Larkin became restive and in the course of a report that he made in connection with some trade union meeting said that the Minister for Finance should impose the excess profits tax, "that the public had no faith in departmental machinery in the control of prices". I should repeat that statement of September, 1948, "the public had no faith in departmental machinery in the control of prices". It had operated for the last eight years and the same officials were operating it. No matter how well-intentioned they were, they could not convince the workers that prices could not be broken. It is now nearly December, 1950, and two years have elapsed and there has been no suggestion during any of that time that the existing price control system was not operating satisfactorily. I hope that the same officers have been left in control, as we knew they were honest, decent men doing their work well. We suddenly have announced, with a week's notice, the formation of a tribunal which is supposed in some way or other to check rising prices. The thing I want to refer to is the fact that the suggestion was made by Deputy Larkin two years ago and has never yet been implemented, although there was all that time to make preparation and consider the matter. The answer, of course, was: "A typical Coalition bargain." My own belief is that the effect of price control machinery can be very limited.

One of the worst features of this debate has been the sort of generalised statement that because one particular group of industries is profiteering all manufacturers are profiteering, that because there may be restrictive practices in certain trades there are restrictive practices in all trades and because there may be a particular retailer here and there who is making too much profit all retailers are making too much profit. That is good socialist talk. We hear quite a lot of it. It is not called socialism in the Dáil, as very few members of the Labour Party dare call themselves socialists. It is the kind of talk that goes very well—the impression is created that if there were very few rich, if their wealth were distributed and their profits taken away, the result would be the ending of poverty. It is the cheapest and loudest cry of the socialist—and socialists all over the world have had to learn very bitter lessons when they started to put it into practice.

One of the statements made in the course of this debate gave the general impression that manufacturer's profits have largely affected the cost of living and that if manufacturer's profits were reduced, the effect on the retail prices would be noticeable to the consumer. Well, I defy the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply to quote the profit element, the manufacturer's profit element, in any one of 60 commodities at his choice, to show that it could possibly affect to any great degree the retail cost of the commodity. The Minister for Industry and Commerce— who is ill and whom we all hope will recover successfully from his illness— in the course of a debate, when he was on the other tack, mentioned the fact that when the price of shoes was about 35/-, the manufacturer's profit was 8d. That is one of many examples. I suppose the best example was given by Sir Stafford Cripps, the former Lord Chancellor of the Exchequer in the British Government, who, during the crisis in 1947, when England was nearly going bankrupt for the third time, made an appeal to workers not to go too fast in regard to demands for increased wages. He admitted in the course of his speech that there were certain trades that were depressed, where wages should be increased. We would, of course, admit that in this country there should be increases in certain trades where the wages and profits are irrelated. He admitted that they would have to go up according to some plan in relation to the cost of living. We would also admit that, if it were done intelligently and wisely and not in a way which would hurt the workers. But he galvanised the trade union movement in England by making an astounding statement, that if in 1947 the whole of the profits of industry, including the dividends, the salaries of all the employers, all the profits assessable after the taxes had been paid on them, were transferred wholly to the workers, the workers would receive 4d. more on every £ in wages. It certainly astonished the Socialist Party in Great Britain. I suppose if any one of them had been asked to guess the figure, he would have multiplied that figure by ten. It is an illustration of how easy it is to talk glibly about profiteering, the idea being that as long as you soak the rich enough you can reduce the cost of living.

Of course profiteering by a group here and an individual there may have a marginal effect on living costs and this factor must be borne in mind. But whether a prices tribunal, sitting and taking most of its important evidence in private, is going to do much to delay the effects of the Korean crisis, of the rearmament of the world, about that I am very, very doubtful. My own belief is that in the long run the history of this country will show that the direct responsibility of a Minister for his Department is the important thing. If the Minister does his work well and if he is a member of a united Government, he can do more to convince the public that the best is being done for them under the circumstances than any number of tribunals sitting more or less in vacuo. One thing I always like to say is that which was said frequently by the former Minister for Industry and Commerce when he was in office, that it is so easy to make generalisations about profits and costs. One of the astounding things in economic life is the fact that some of the companies, both British and Irish, that make the largest possible profits, that look very like profiteering, sell their goods at the lowest possible prices and achieve the very highest possible quality, and that some of the most highly costed goods are sold by companies who do not make half enough profit or pay half enough wages to their workers. You can find plenty of evidence of that throughout the length and breadth of this land, of America and of Great Britain.

One of the dangers of the ordinary routine system of price control is any kind of cast-iron system which tells a man that he cannot make more than a certain amount of profit in a year in relation to a particular commodity. The result is to dissuade him from putting in better machinery and to remove the incentive to make a higher profit and he tries to take it out on his workers if they are not protected by a really excellent trade union. They may be the first sufferers from unwise price control.

Mr. C. Lehane

The Deputy is drawing his inference from one of the generalisations to which he took exception.

Mr. Childers

Nothing I say can be regarded as a generalisation, but it frequently happens. As an example, there is a very large company in this city—I will not mention the name— which makes enormous profits, enormous profits by any standards. They make goods of a most excellent quality and pay their workers well. I am saying that because this glib talk about profits can be so false.

To go back to this beautiful history of the efforts of the Government to carry out its promises with regard to the cost of living, we had Deputy Larkin in September, 1948, saying that he believed that prices could be broken. Then we had the Minister for Industry and Commerce on October 29th, 1948. I think that this statement should be repeated and I hope that the newspapers will publish it in their wisdom in this debate to-morrow morning.

Mr. McQuillan

Is that a tip to the Press?

Mr. Childers

The Minister for Industry and Commerce said in October, 1948, as reported in the Irish Press:—

"I intend to do what I can to see that costs are reduced but there are definite limits to what any Government can do to control prices."

And then he threw up the sponge beautifully and completely by saying:—

"The remedy is really in the hands of the public."

It is no wonder that the Parliamentary Secretary spread great headlines across the Independent when he said that there had been no advance in prices because he was obviously trying to protect his Minister, whom I am sorry not to have in this debate. I hope he will be with us again. He said it to protect his Minister, who two years and two months ago threw up the sponge and said definitely that the public could decide the issue. If the public refrained from buying expensive goods —he did not say this—the effect would be that the price of those goods would inevitably fall.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

That is exactly what Deputy Aiken said.

Mr. Childers

I do not know how this view can be related to the proposal to have not only the prices section of the Department of Industry and Commerce operating, not only the Industrial Development Authority operating, but to appoint another new tribunal to sit and consider prices. Has the Minister for Industry and Commerce changed his mind? I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary that. Does he no longer believe that the remedy for the high cost of living lies in the hands of the public. That is an interesting question and an important question. Let him tell us what circumstaces have caused him to change his mind or whether it is merely the effect of pressure by one of the Coalition groups upon him. Has he no belief in it? Does this section in the Bill represent not his own belief but the belief of one of the groups of the Coalition? That is a fair question and I would like to have an answer.

Then the Taoiseach, in December, 1948 (Volume 113, column 726), answered a question by Deputy Cowan. Deputy Cowan asked him whether it was possible for him to slash prices and the Taoiseach made this statement, which is really magnificent in the light of all that followed:—

"Every effort has been, is being and will be made by the Government to reduce the cost of living.... The remission of taxation which was effected by the Government immediately after their entry upon office must, in itself, have acted as a significant contribution towards reducing the cost of living. In addition to this, constant supervision has been exercised over prices and profits. All possible precautions have been and are being taken by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to ensure that the profits earned by manufacturers' agents, importers and distributors are reasonable having regard to costs. ... The principal consideration which prevents a fall in the general price level is the high cost of imported commodities and raw materials."

:——"but Clann na Poblachta is right and it is quite possible to reduce the cost of living by 30 per cent. if you try. Go back to the Government and tell them that." I heard that talk and it used to annoy me——

Mr. Dunne

I am sure it did.

Mr. Childers

——as an ordinary individual. Now we see that every one of those promises was brought to nothing. I do not think that the Government have been able to produce a single profiteer from the bag. I do not think that any group or single businessman has been held up to obloquy because he and they were lining the pockets of Fianna Fáil at the public expense. I am very glad that the whole of that false nonsense has been burst very successfully by the present Government.

I thought at the time that it might be possible to bring about a very small reduction in prices. Any new Minister for Industry and Commerce might be able to do a little. He goes into office and simply starts to call for paper and stir things up. He has cases examined and prices examined and reminds the officers of the Department of certain factors regarding price control. It surprised me that they were not able to do a little simply by virtue of the fact of one person taking office from another person. The fact is that they were not able. The cost of living remained stable and then started to go up quite steadily after a short time in respect of a whole series of commodities of great importance to the public. The result of the whole thing has been simply the ending of a shameless campaign of misrepresentation carried on against the Fianna Fáil Party for which the Government is going to pay in the long run by a loss of confidence among the public.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 29 Nov 1950