Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Dec 1950

Vol. 123 No. 11

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."

The matters contained in the Supplies and Services Bill naturally have given rise to a prolonged debate in the House. I do not intend to travel over the ground which was covered on the last day when this Bill was under discussion.

I think it is apparent to us all that the cost of living is a very serious matter for the country; it is serious for all sections of our people. Some sections can, to a certain extent, take steps to alleviate the hardship which rising prices may bring. The better-off people are in the position that to them the burden is not so severe. Other sections, particularly organised labour, can take steps should the occasion arise to alleviate the burden of rising prices as it affects them and the value of their real wages. There is, however, a large section of people who are not in any organisation, who are not in any trade union and who have not much money. I refer to clerks, small professional people, small earners—white-collar workers. It is to them that this is a very real problem, a very real danger.

Last Thursday I said that while, to a certain extent, the increase may be caused by matters outside the control of the Government, nevertheless it is the duty of the Government primarily, and also of all sections of the people, to lessen, in so far as it is possible to do so, the effect of rising prices at home. That can only be done by increasing the production of the things we can produce, by stepping up home production and by ensuring that more and more we become less dependent on imported goods. There are certain articles we must continue to buy, but there are many things a greater production of which we can look forward to at home. Labourers and employers have a great contribution to make in the direction of solving the burden of rising prices. The general body of consumers, the white-collar workers who have not any redress, expect from workers and employers an important contribution towards the task of reducing prices.

The Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with this matter very capably. I think he has put the problem before the country in a fair way. He told us that up to the last four or five months prices and wages were more or less stabilised, but during September, October and November the tendency towards a price increase became apparent. That is the situation which must be dealt with now. That is an approach which must commend itself to the country. With regard to any further increases, if we are going to take powers under this Bill and if we look forward to a vista of controls such as we had during the emergency—but I hope far wider and far sterner—we should start off on this principle, that the prices obtaining last August should be the prices obtaining for all goods unless good reason is shown to the contrary.

Again, the Government, by its price control system, should freeze all prices at the figures obtaining under normal conditions. Then, in relation to each commodity, let them have their machinery for fixing new prices, let them have whatever procedure may be devised under this Bill, but the onus should be put on everybody seeking to increase prices beyond the level obtaining two or three months ago to show that costs have increased to such an extent as to entitle them in ordinary justice to a certain margin. It is only by taking a step of that kind that the Government will ensure a continuance of the confidence of the people in their policy of price fixation.

There were certain matters dealt with during the debate that I think require some reference now. The Opposition, in discussing this measure, have behaved in rather an extraordinary manner. Some years ago it used to be fashionable for Ministers of the then Government, when speaking at dinners and luncheons in different parts of the country, to lament that there was not a strong Opposition in the country.

Deputy Lemass and Deputy de Valera, Senior, who were Ministers at the time, used to make that remark from time to time. To-day we have as important an economic problem facing this House, the Government and the country as a whole as ever we had, and while it is right to say that the country must expect a lead from the Government and is getting it, it would not be too much to expect from the Opposition some evidence of what their policy might be in such circumstances. I think they owe that to their supporters and to the country.

To save the Government?

The Government is well able to look after itself. Deputy Lemass's contribution to this debate was absolutely devoid of any evidence of a policy. So far as he is concerned apparently, apart from saying that this Government has failed to reduce prices, he has given no evidence of what he or his Party would do if faced with this problem and faced with similar circumstances. That being so, we are entitled to use our own knowledge of what the Fianna Fáil Party did in the past to imagine what they would do now under similar circumstances. I have no doubt that, if Deputy Killilea's Party were in power, the Deputy would be very strong in convincing the people of his constituency that the Government he was supporting was correct in reimposing and freezing wages and incomes in this country. Apart from what we know they did before, we can have no indication of what might be the policy of the Opposition in regard to this problem. I think it is worthy of note that the only evidence of concern with regard to this problem of the rise in prices given in this House comes not from the Opposition; they are quite complacent about the matter; they are not concerned about it. Were it not for the fact that supporting this Government there is the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and other Parties who have their ears very close to the ground, I do not believe that this discussion would be taking place here to-day.

Those are matters which certainly are worthy of note. I do not think it is going too far to say that on this important matter the Opposition has evinced no real interest and that it has disclosed no real policy. It certainly has failed to play the part that an Opposition should play, and to that extent it is regrettable that Fianna Fáil Ministers used to say that we have not in this country a virile and strong Opposition. But, since some of the Fianna Fáil Deputies did happen to mention with some feeling of concern one or two price increases which they as individuals deprecated, I should like to refer to these matters. I heard Deputy Vivion de Valera refer, amongst other increases in food prices, to the fact that the price charged for meat had increased under this Government. I do not want to deal with this in detail, but I think if there is one matter that the ordinary housewife should be thankful to the present Minister for Industry and Commerce about it is the question of meat. If ever a Minister had to withstand an organised demonstration with regard to an increase in the price of any commodity, the present Minister had to withstand it in connection with meat prices. A consistent campaign was carried on not merely for one or two months but over a period of two years seeking an increase in the price of meat, and that was successfully withstood by the present Minister for Industry and Commerce. It comes very poorly from Deputy Vivion de Valera to chide the Minister about an increase in the price of meat after that campaign had been met and defeated by the present Minister.

It is true to say that the price of meat was increased, I think, by 1d. per lb. The price was increased shortly after the Government took office. But Deputy de Valera did not tell us why that increase took place. It took place because Deputy Lemass, as Minister for Industry and Commerce prior to the 18th February, 1948, had entered into a solemn agreement with the butchers in this country. He had given them a solemn undertaking in those days that he would, after February, 1948, permit an increase in meat prices by a certain figure. That undertaking having been given it was honoured by the present Minister after the change of Government, and it was merely honoured because it had been given by the responsible Minister at that time. It is in those circumstances that the present Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government generally are going to be chided by Deputy de Valera with regard to increases in meat prices. They, surely, are entitled to say, if the Opposition were in power, that that increase at least would have been permitted. They are further entitled to say that were it not for the action taken by Deputy Lemass that increase might never have been allowed or permitted.

Deputy McGrath and some other Deputies deprecated an increase in the cost of living as represented by an increase in bus fares and railway fares, and other transport charges. I wonder if Deputy McGrath was ever in this House after the change of Government took place listening to Deputy Lemass thumping the desk opposite, and asking the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, in view of the insolvent condition of Córas Iompair Éireann, when he was going to permit an increase in transport charges? Is it not true to say that, if ever a campaign was carried on by the Opposition for an increase in the cost of living, Deputy Lemass carried that campaign on for an increase in transport charges? He was privy and very privy to the condition of affairs in Córas Iompair Éireann as a former Minister for Industry and Commerce. He made the case here, time and time again, that this Government should, in the interests of that company, substantially increase transport charges. Again, I think it is true to say that if he had continued to be a Minister, and if his Party had continued to be the Government, such an increase, as has taken place in transport charges, would have taken place at a far earlier date.

Quote any statement in which he said such a thing.

Go back to the West. You do not know what you are talking about. We heard that case made here time and time again. It is hard for us to be patient with the kind of two-timing tactics which we get from the Opposition. Thirdly, there used to be quite a Tuesday-afternoon wail in this House by Deputy Ó Briain, Deputy Corry and a few other Opposition Deputies as to when the Minister for Agriculture was going to increase the price of milk to the dairy farmers of this country.

What about Deputy P.D. Lehane over there?

That case was made by these Deputies. The suggestion was made by Deputy Corry, Deputy Ó Briain and all the rest of them that the dairy farmers were put out of business by this Government as the price of milk was not increased. That is one little tune that is being blown softly on the Fianna Fáil whistle to the farmers of this country. But, when discussing in this House the big problem of prices, we have Deputy Vivion de Valera talking about the cup of tea that he had for his breakfast and being critical of the fact that this Government was allowing a price for milk which was unfair to the people of the country. Where is the Fianna Fáil policy in that? If Deputy Corry and Deputy Ó Briain—I do not know whether Deputy Allen joined in that particular effort—but perhaps he did in others—speaking as Fianna Fáil Deputies and spokesmen of the Opposition, are going to advocate particular prices for particular commodities produced by the farmer, then what is the sense of Fianna Fáil Deputies representing city constituencies suggesting that the prices demanded from them are in some respects unjust and unfair? The milk prices criticised by Deputy Vivion de Valera were Fianna Fáil prices fixed by the Fianna Fáil Minister for Agriculture.

And should be increased.

Now we have Deputy Corry saying that they should be increased. I am, perhaps, inclined to agree with Deputy Corry. I am sure that he will agree with me, that being the situation, that he could not possibly continue to support Deputy Vivion de Valera, who suggests that they should not be increased.

Your Government have increased the cost of production by 20 per cent.

At one time Fianna Fáil are saying that agricultural prices, so far as they affect the cost of living and the cup of tea which Deputy Vivion de Valera spoke about, are unfair and unjust. I do not think there is a Fianna Fáil Deputy from the city in the House now from whom we could get the other side. Deputy Corry thinks that the prices of milk allowed to the farmers are scandalously low. Deputy Hilliard, I am sure, will agree with him and I am sure that Deputy Allen and other Fianna Fáil Deputies would take that line also.

Deputy Vivion de Valera did not say what you have stated.

I would remind Deputies that we ought to have some order when Deputy O'Higgins is speaking.

Surely we are entitled to know from our learned friend sitting on the bench opposite what is their policy. Do they desire and are they striving for increased returns to the agricultural community? Is that their policy?

The cost of production.

Is that what they are striving to get? Are they undertaking that, if they are ever put on these benches again, they will implement such a policy?

Your time there will be short.

We always did it.

The Chair has very little sympathy with a Deputy who is looking for interruptions.

I never mind them.

We are entitled to know whether that is the policy and the aim of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Tell us about the Coalition policy.

I will tell you plenty about it. This is a matter of concern to the country generally. As I said when speaking on this matter last Thursday, I think it would be wrong for the Government, with regard to the problem of rising prices, under any circumstances to pursue any policy which would depreciate the return which the agricultural community expect to get from agricultural produce sold here. That would be a mistake and it would have a harmful effect generally. I and other Deputies supporting the Government take pride in the fact that under this Government agricultural prices and the return to the agricultural community have advanced substantially.

They are the Fianna Fáil prices, as you said a while ago.

The Fianna Fáil price for milk, but not for wheat and barley.

Deputy Corry has made a speech and he ought to allow Deputy O'Higgins to make his speech.

We cannot stand that kind of tripe.

If Deputy Corry cannot stand it, he has his remedy without compelling me to report him.

On this particular matter, it seems that there are Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party who are a bit concerned about what I have been saying. Naturally, Deputy Corry, Deputy Allen and Deputy Hilliard—I do not know about Deputy Killilea— are concerned about these prices for agricultural produce. In fact, they rather suggest that they are inadequate. These are understandable views to express. The point I want to make is, that being the view which they express, why did they permit certain of their front bench Deputies to make the contrary case in this House?

Tell us your policy.

Why did they permit Deputy Vivion de Valera and others to make the case that this Government was so unjust to the people of this country that they wrongly allowed the price of farmers' butter to go up?

We had a test in the Lobby on that and we know how Deputy Vivion de Valera voted.

The Opposition evidently thought that on this question of the cost of living it would be all very well if they could make speeches which would only concern the people of Dublin City. They were quite content in thinking that these particular debates and the speeches that they make here would not be held against them in their own constituencies down the country. But I want to tell them that they are making a very big mistake if that is their view. Our people are not fools and they will very quickly catch out any Party in opposition who tries to play two tunes at different times, one to the people of Dublin City and one to the people in the country generally.

It is five or six different tunes you play.

All in harmony, though.

You are playing the wrong tune now.

It is the concern of the Government to deal quickly with this problem of rising prices. Generally speaking, leaving aside what I am sure were only jocular references by Fianna Fáil Deputies to food prices, it is perfectly clear to me at least that where essential commodities are concerned, such as the clothes we have to wear and things of that nature, there will be a tendency for prices to increase and that tendency will be quite apparent. There is a latent danger that certain people will avail of external difficulties, of the rearmament drive in Europe and all over the world, of devaluation and kindred matters to use these difficulties for the purpose of justifying an increase in the prices of the commodities they sell, even in the case of those commodities already in stock or those that can be manufactured at home. That happened in the case of blankets last September. I think that tendency will be most apparent in clothing apparel generally.

I have suggested to the Government that it should freeze prices as from a certain date. Having done that, I have suggested that the Government should consider in relation to each commodity whether a percentage increase might be justified. With regard to clothes generally I would suggest that consideration should be given to the possibility of providing "utility clothing." I know that there is a certain public opinion against such clothing. I know there are certain people who think quite bona fide that we should not introduce such clothing here. I know there are people who would regard the provision of such clothing as unsound and wrong. It is quite clear, however, that in the next three, four or five months we shall have to face the effects of a 700 per cent. increase in the price of wool with a consequential increase in the cost of textiles generally. If it is our purpose to cushion the effect of these increases we must provide our wage earners with clothes and footwear at reasonable prices. I have been told by people engaged in clothing manufacture here that it is quite possible to manufacture with good material at a reasonable cost a utility suit of clothes to sell at a reasonable price; but I have also been told that the trouble lies with regard to clothes generally. Most firms producing clothes and selling the finished article provide in, for instance, a suit of clothes things which bear far too high a percentage of the cost of the entire suit. I have been told that it should be possible to provide a simpler type of suit of reasonably good material at a fair price, something on the style of the utility clothing provided elsewhere.

I foresee that it is in clothing generally that the greatest increase in price will come and that it will most quickly manifest itself in clothing. I urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary to give consideration to the provision of utility clothing. If the Government does consider the question of freezing prices at a particular level from a particular date, then these tribunals and advisory committees envisaged by the Government can be safely charged with the responsibility of sifting and dealing with all applications for an increase in prices above the level actually fixed. I do not think any step the Government can take under existing international conditions will be effective to prevent some increase in prices, but I do believe that the worst effects of a rise in prices because of external conditions can be avoided by action taken by the Government now.

With regard to the jeers hurled at us by the Opposition in relation to promises to reduce the cost of living, this Government can take pride in the fact that since it assumed office in February, 1948, being fully conscious of its obligations to the people and realising that the main concern of our people at that time was a fall in the real value of money, and realising that that fall could be dealt with either by an increase in wages and incomes generally or by a reduction in prices, this Government has in the last two and a half years up to August last maintained prices at a stable level despite the fact that wages did increase two or three times in that period. To that extent the Government succeeded in reducing the cost of living and giving to our people a better return in value for the money they earned. That situation was achieved by the policy of this Government, by an increase in production generally and by the steps taken by the Government to effect that in the last two and a half years.

The Government is now faced with an entirely new situation calling for new steps and a new determination. Having listened to the Parliamentary Secretary's speech when introducing this Bill, I know that the gravity of the situation is apparent to the Government. I suggest they should start now on the lines I have indicated and, if they do that, the worst effects of the situation will be avoided here.

I do not know where Deputy T.F. O'Higgins, Junior, was during the last three weeks while we were debating this very serious question and making a very considerable contribution to the debate from these benches. The contrast is rather remarkable. From the Government Benches no Minister has made any contribution to this debate with the exception of that made by the Parliamentary Secretary, who is in charge of the Bill. From the Fine Gael Benches only two Deputies—the two Deputy O'Higgins —made a contribution to the debate——

That is as accurate as the rest of your statements.

——whereas we have had very valuable speeches from our benches made by several Deputies— Deputy Lemass, Deputy de Valera, Junior, Deputy Derrig, Deputy Childers and Deputy Briscoe.

Deputy Corry and Deputy McGrath.

I am referring only to those who spoke while I happened to to be in the House myself. They made speeches which were very serious contributions to the economics of the whole problem—and a very difficult subject it is, as everybody appreciates. Deputy O'Higgins made one of his usual points, that there was not a strong Opposition. The Deputy cannot, I suggest, justify that statement when there is an Opposition that is coherent in its point of view, which has principles, which has a strong discipline and a very definite attitude on important questions of policy.

The usual cry is raised by Deputy O'Higgins that the Opposition Party have not put forward any policy themselves. That is a very old catch cry. It is not the duty of the Opposition to put forward a policy. The Opposition is not the Government. The Opposition is there for the purpose, very definitely, of criticising. They have not the machinery of Government at their disposal. They have not got all the economic facts and the files which would render it possible for them to put forward a policy and deal with all the objections and criticisms of the other side. It is for the Government to do that and not for the Opposition. However, if the speeches which I have mentioned are carefully read through, quite a number of suggestions will be found in them which will be very valuable to the Government because our attitude all along the line is not to be destructive, but to criticise only where there is a lack of policy, and to be as constructive as we can in the circumstances in which we are placed.

The suggestion has been made that it was wrong for us to put the standstill Order into operation during the emergency. That is a complete misrepresentation of what happened. Wages actually increased on the average by about 60 per cent. during the period of the Fianna Fáil Administration. The volume of employment also increased enormously during that period. The foundations were laid for a whole industrial policy during the same period. We did put a standstill Order through which operated both against wages and profits at the time. We were experimenting with the whole system of control of profits.

"Experimenting" is a good word.

We were experimenting, but nothing has been done since. I might say that Deputy Larkin misrepresented us on that question, because we did establish an index figure which was not anything of the nature that he represented it to be. It was an experiment to carry us over a period and at the time we went out of office we actually had the Prices and Efficiency Bill ready to enact, which I think Deputy Larkin supported at the time, but it has not been put into operation yet. Then he challenged us for not having done anything, ignoring the obvious fact that we have been in opposition ever since and have had no power to do anything. It is for Deputy Larkin now to insist on the enforcement of the Prices and Efficiency Bill and on any other measure which may effectively control or help to control prices. Complete control has not been achieved in any other country but we can only hope to arrive at some measure of control. Our quarrel with the present Government is that they started off by saying that this problem could be easily dealt with and that the cost of living could easily be kept down. They got into office on that mandate and, while they have been in office, they have done absolutely nothing. How they are going to do it is a question for them. If they are going to reduce the cost of living by 30 per cent., as they promised, they will have to increase subsidies by £30,000,000 a year. Without doing anything to reduce the cost of living, they have already increased taxation by £12,000,000. Of course that increase is again reflected in the cost of living and especially in the costs which have to be paid by the farmers. A reaction has therefore taken place in farmers' prices. We tried to impose a standstill Order to prevent costs rising. Now costs have risen and you cannot easily fix prices. You cannot freeze prices because, if you do freeze prices, you will have to freeze wages as well. Does Deputy Larkin suggest that one can be done without the other?

You did it in the reverse order.

We had a standstill Order before the cost of living went up. Now that the cost of living has gone up, does Deputy Larkin want us to stop increases in the wages of the workers, because he can hardly freeze prices unless he does?

Why not?

Is he going to do it by increasing taxation by about £30,000,000? That is the only way it can be done. Deputy O'Higgins mentioned the increased cost of transport as being one of the causes for the increase in the cost of living. Of course it is, but Deputy Lemass's point was that if you had an increase in the beginning in transport costs——

Why did he reduce them?

He asked to have it done at once because his intimate knowledge of the question suggested to him that if you did not do it at the beginning you would have to pay a great deal more later on. The actual result was that you had to pay a subsidy of several millions to the company, which you would not have had to pay if you had made an increase in the charges at the time he mentioned it.

Why did he reduce them then?

That was on a previous occasion.

Before a general election.

There is one thing that stands out clear and that is that we stabilised the prices of tea, bread, sugar, flour. We did it by means of a subsidy. Our policy was to stabilise these prices because these were essential commodities. We went out of office because we imposed taxes to pay for these subsidies. You will have to stick to the Fianna Fáil policy if you intend to stabilise prices.

There is a bigger ration of tea and butter now than there ever was when Fianna Fáil were in office.

The index figure has been knocked "bawways" because of the double price system which you have instituted for essential commodities. Workers who work hard have big appetites, and they consume a great deal more sugar, tea, flour and bread than an ordinary person. They have, therefore, to buy more than they are allowed on the ration. It is these workers who are paying the blackmarket prices and not rich people who can make up for the shortage in the ration by buying other commodities.

When did they get the bigger appetites? Since you went over there?

They have bigger appetites because they have to work with their muscles. They have hard work to do and naturally they eat more.

Surely that was the case three years ago.

Of course. We had a general price for all bread, tea, sugar and so on. It was you who made the differentiation. In conclusion, I would like to say that the Fianna Fáil Party have always, both in Government and out of Government, had the greatest concern for this question of the cost of living because it has the most cruel influence in the economic life of the country; it is the most permeating; it affects the weaker classes of the community. Organised labour is able to stand up to it but unorganised labour, the white collar workers and the weaker elements in the community, suffer far more from the effects of a rise in the cost of living than anybody else. It has a general disturbing effect upon the whole economic fabric of the country. For that reason it was a constant headache and source of thought to our Government when we were in power. Our main quarrel with the present Government is the casual way in which they have faced up to the problem and the official statements in which they have tried to mislead the people to believe that there has not been a rise in the cost of living when every housewife in the country could tell you the contrary.

As a preamble to what I am about to say on the Supplies and Services Bill, I should like to give the Parliamentary Secretary an exhortation that was given at one time by a famous French general, the English translation of which is "They shall not pass". My version would be "They shall not increase". Whatever ideas may be put forward in this House, whether they are constructive or destructive, I believe that delaying action is a very serious matter at the moment for the purchasing and consuming public. While we are debating the best methods, under legislative authority, to combat the actions of the parasites and leeches of commerce, trades, or interests, the Parliamentary Secretary, who is acting at present for the Minister for Industry and Commerce, should use the power, which I believe is at his disposal, of imposing a standstill Order on increases.

Everybody realises that criticising each other's contribution or having little knocks at each other in this House will not improve the situation for the people we represent. I should like to know how long it will be before this Bill comes into operation and how long it will be before the machinery which it creates will become operative and will produce results. In the meantime, what will happen? We can only judge by past experience. In the past few months the price of goods has been stepping up by practically 100 per cent. At the moment the public that we represent, the consuming and purchasing public, have their backs to the wall. That applies in particular to the poorer section of the community. I would exhort the Parliamentary Secretary to take immediate steps to see that those people who cannot retreat further are not annihilated.

This Bill, undoubtedly, is overdue. Some of us who live in rural Ireland and who probably, from time to time, might not be taken too seriously by the intellectuals of all Parties, have been telling stories of what has been happening in rural Ireland since devaluation. Devaluation was used immediately by a particular category—I have no hesitation in mentioning the people dealing in textile goods—as an excuse to inform their customers that they must anticipate an increase in the price of textiles in the very near future.

Recently an announcement appeared in the daily Press in regard to the price of wool in Australia. Wherever is the grapevine between the commercial people in this country and Australia, I do not know, but I would say that they had the news almost before it was announced on the radio and the price of wool stepped up to a figure out of all proportion to what was paid for it. The wool that was sold as a manufactured article was probably wool that was bought a year, two years or three years ago.

There has been a great deal of criticism of the Labour Party, particularly by some of the mealy-mouthed individuals in the Opposition—the people who never made a mistake or never made a false promise in their lives. No wonder Deputy Killilea would smile. The Labour Party decided on a particular action and they have made no apology for it, namely, to put the originators and implementers of the standstill wages Order on the Opposition side of the House and to give them a rest for a bit. They have been given that rest but, candidly, I can see no improvement in their mentality.

A certain attitude has been adopted by Deputy Childers who has a very calculated and impassioned way of making a speech. I believe that he is more interested in the people that this Bill will chastise than in the people whom they are victimising at the moment. He calmly suggests, about a pair of boots costing 35/-, that the manufacturer makes a profit of only 8d. He may have a more intimate knowledge, by virtue of his position, than I have, but I am sure that common sense would tell anyone that it is absurd to suggest that the manufacturer has only 8d. profit on a 35/- pair of shoes. You might find that in Aesop's or Grimm's, but I do not ever remember reading anything like it.

We all understand that the Opposition will be very anxious to criticise, but there is such a thing as constructive criticism. Deputy Corry, representing East Cork, seemed to be interested more in rock phosphate from North Africa and coal than he was in the price of blankets or wool or some of the other commodities that Deputy Vivion de Valera mentioned the other night. Probably some farmer Deputies will appreciate the position with regard to the spreading of phosphate. Approximately 8 cwt. go to the acre. The Cork Harbour Board charges at the rate of 2/9 a ton. Therefore, the price per acre to the farmer spreading rock phosphate would be something like one-fifth of that. I do not know what type of economics Deputy Corry had in mind but, unlike Deputy de Valera, Deputy Corry kept very far away from high finance. He spoke about 9d. a ton in coal. He may have had something at the back of his mind. I cannot, however, see where any reduction in rock phosphates will bring about a reduction in the cost of living.

It is very peculiar that the same Deputy has submitted a motion to increase milk to the consuming public. I wonder does he realise the conditions of the people who are living in the Belmont houses in Cobh, the Sarsfield Terrace houses in Youghal, in the Clonmult Terrace and in Rosary Place in Midleton, in St. Mary's Crescent, and St. Bernard's Place, Fermoy, and St. Fanahan's Place and Liam Lynch's Terrace in Mitchelstown? I wonder if it is likely that Deputy Corry in some of his peregrinations would visit those areas and would he have a talk with the people there about increasing the price of milk? I am sure he would get their benediction. He might get more than their benediction and I do not think he would be very long there.

Deputy McGrath has assumed the role of Boss Croker in the Fianna Fáil Party in another assembly to which I belong. He made a very good contribution about black markets and other things. He referred to hospitals and he suggested that the Minister for Health, by virtue of a direction to private hospitals quite recently, increased maintenance charges there. I have not very much knowledge of the charges of private hospitals. I know very well that if I were ill and if I could afford a private ward in the hospital in Fermoy it would do me grand. For the information of the House I will read a letter issued by the Department of Local Government and Public Health, Custom House, Dublin, 26th August, 1943:—

"A Chara,

I am directed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to refer to the circular letter from this Department, dated 5th February last, P. 18/1943, on the subject of the admission to district institutions of persons not eligible for assistance, and to state that in most of the draft regulations submitted the charge in force for patients in single beds and in private wards is unnecessarily low ..."

That has nothing to do with the cost of living.

It arises out of a remark passed by Deputy McGrath.

Even that would not make it relevant.

I did not make any such statement. I talked about the increased charges in local authority hospitals and voluntary hospitals as directed by the Minister for Health. The Deputy should not misquote me.

I am not misquoting you.

Because one Deputy made a remark, that would not make the Deputy's observations relevant or in order. I suggest that what Deputy Keane was reading has no relevance whatever to the cost of living.

In any case, private patients had to pay 15/- a day in county hospitals in 1943 and in district hospitals they had to pay 12/-. I am not too much concerned for the people who can afford to go into private hospitals, but I know very well that since Dr. Browne became Minister for Health the charges have been reduced. In Fermoy county hospital the charges for private patients have been reduced from five guineas to three guineas and for semi-private patients from four guineas to two guineas. That is an answer to Deputy McGrath. He gave a distorted version the other night.

That is not true.

Apparently there is only one man who is infallible in this House and that is Deputy McGrath. He gets away with a lot of things at times.

Could you not deal with matters of this sort at the Cork County Council?

He might have got enough of it yesterday.

And the baby is crying to-day.

When I get Deputy McGrath at the Cork County Council, I will deal with him. When he is finished with me he will know he was in a row.

The Deputy must keep to what is under consideration in the House.

Deputy Vivion de Valera mentioned several commodities and as I said afterwards he was very informative. He quoted a lot of articles of food. Some of them are necessities of life but more of them are just luxuries. It may be that he was taking into consideration the fact that, at the moment, this world is presented with the danger of another great war, and that as a shadow Minister for Defence, or, if I am not procrastinating, as the future Commander-in-Chief of the Irish Army, he was probably trying to create a force that would throw back the invader. I have very serious doubts as to whether that was his object or not. I have the idea that, for some months past, a certain atmosphere was being created in this country. There was a war scare and questions were being asked about preparations for war. I believe there was a slight touch of the red-herring in all those questions and utterances that were asked and made by the shadow Minister and other Deputies of the Opposition. I have the idea that the red-herring was drawn across the path of the public while certain other things were occurring. We know the people who went to the Gresham in 1947 and signed a charter of exploitation there, and we know their friends. We know that some of them are, at the moment, battening and fattening on the money of the purchasing and consuming public. This war scare was perhaps dangled before the public so that those people would get a certain opportunity, and that, when the time came to avail of it, they could increase the price of textile goods by from 50 to 100 per cent. Unfortunately, they have got away with that.

Deputy Lemass did not make a single constructive suggestion during his speech. He could not see a reason for this or for that. Surely, after his 16 years of experience and knowledge as Minister for Industry and Commerce, he should be able to put the thing in its proper perspective, as well as the difficulties facing any Government when the parasites of commercial enterprise get going and start to raise the ante, in the parlance of poker. I believe in open agreements and in open discussions and I fail to see what objection there can be to a public investigation when people apply for increases in prices. Why should not an inquiry be public? I do not believe it will have any deleterious effect on those people, whether they are wholesalers, middle-men or retailers. They have a very strong organisation. They can regulate their prices to the best advantage, come out in public and make the best case they can for them. That is not going to deprive them of any profits to which they feel they are entitled. Our people are reasonably-minded and, if convinced that a case has been made for an increase in the price of any commodity, I am sure they will be quite prepared to accept it, just as at the moment announcements are made in the Press by the Minister, through the machinery at his disposal, that he is convinced that an increase in prices should take place. The increase operates immediately.

The proposal in this Bill is to set up an advisory committee which can take all the facts into consideration. When an application is made for an increase in the price of any commodity, it will be investigated before the tribunal. The people making the application will have the services of the wizards of finance, the costings experts who, if you like, can make a shilling out of a pound or a pound out of a shilling, at their disposal. I believe that the objecting public should have the same assistance, and that the very best men that can be procured should be on that tribunal to examine the accountants engaged by those manufacturers, middlemen or retailers to see that they are only allowed a fair profit. I do not think it is going outside the bounds of ordinary justice to do that.

We were elected to this House primarily for the purpose of protecting the people who put us here. Some say that we were elected on false promises. Of course, we are the only people who ever did make false promises! I suppose that by our sins we shall be known, and that the people at the other side of the House, when they were in opposition before, never made promises. Did they make them in 1932 or did they make them later in 1937 and 1938, 1943 or 1944? Their promises became so played out in 1948 that the public realised that they had been exploited long enough. The result is that they are now on the right of the Chair, and we are on this side. Again I ask the Parliamentary Secretary immediately to put a standstill Order on prices, particularly on the prices of textile commodities. If he does not, these people will avail themselves of the opportunity to step up prices further. Then, when the Australian wool comes in and when it is made into cloth, they will look for a further increase. Even if that is not given, they will be quite satisfied because they will have had at least a year of increased prices which they should not get.

I take a very strong view of this. There is no use in our blowing hot here and blowing cold outside. If some of the Opposition Deputies would refrain from turning the debate into a bit of a joke, it would be a lot more helpful to the people who are anxious to try and bring down the cost of living and give the public an opportunity of buying commodities at prices which would give a fair profit and which would also be fair to them. I could not at all agree with some of the statements which included butter in the case made against the Government with regard to the increase in the cost of living. After all, we must be reasonable. When the Fianna Fáil Government was in power the butter ration was two ounces up to a month before the general election. We have increased that ration and the people have not to go to the black market for butter. Deputies from Cork City should know that 10/- and 12/- per lb. was paid for butter in Cork City during the Fianna Fáil administration.

We have increased the tea ration. Deputy Vivion de Valera went into hysterics over the price of off-theration tea. I have known tea to be sold on the black market in my town for £2 a lb. and not a word was said about those parasites and leeches who were charging that price for tea. Sugar was sold for 3/- a stone and there was nothing said about it. Bread was sold for 2/6 and 3/- per 2-lb. loaf. In that case, the people were caught and fined £50, but they made that practically on three batches of bread. Now there is a terrible clamour about the white bread. The people I am concerned about are those who can only afford to buy the bread made from the 85 per cent. extraction flour. They were the only people the Opposition were concerned about at one time when they claimed to be the poor man's Government.

Amongst the foodstuffs mentioned the other night were candied peel and things like that. I was wondering whether we were in a Gilbert and Sullivan atmosphere when Deputy Vivion de Valera read out certain statistics. I am surprised that some people, who proclaimed themselves to be the benefactors of the poor, listened to him. Amongst the items he included the price of milk. We are accused of being a Coalition Government. We are, but we are not a splinter Party like the Party opposite. We have Deputy Corry asking in a motion for a further increase in the price of milk to the consumers. I daresay he has not done that without getting the benediction of the "big chief". I do not believe that the rigid, implacable, discipline of brass hats of the Fianna Fáil Party would allow any private Deputy to put down a motion in this House without its getting their benediction. That motion is listed for discussion in this House. Yet, Deputy Vivion de Valera says that we increased the price of milk, while one of the oldest members of his Party wants to charge extra for milk to the people of Cobh, Midleton, Youghal, Fermoy and Mitchelstown for the winter months, irrespective of whether they may be single or married, or whether they have small or big families.

Is there not a great difference between a Coalition Government which is trying to do the best they can for the people and a splinter Party such as that? One of the Fianna Fáil's front benchers, a shadow Minister for Defence, accuses us of increasing the price of milk, while Deputy Corry is looking for an increase in the price of milk. Incidentally, that would increase the price of butter, because he is also looking for an increase in the price of milk delivered to the creameries. Some of these Deputies, particularly Deputy Lemass, could be very helpful in opposition. I have paid a tribute in this House before to Deputy Lemass and I repeat it. Undoubtedly, he rendered valuable services during the difficult period which this country had to pass through. Some of us who were aware of the difficulties he had to encounter, highly appreciated that. I am afraid that Deputy Lemass in opposition is a different man from Deputy Lemass as Minister for Industry and Commerce or Minister for Supplies. I am sure he will realise that there is a critical situation facing this country and indeed facing the whole world at the moment with all preparations for war and that he will be a little more helpful during the Committee and Report Stages of this Bill.

I conclude by asking the Parliamentary Secretary again immediately to enforce a standstill Order on the prices of commodities on which he should realise he can enforce it, and that we will not be faced with the position where we shall have to take measures that may not be for the betterment of the people we represent. The sooner a standstill Order is put on the better it will be for the Government. The machinery being at his disposal, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, acting on behalf of the Government, will put that machinery into operation immediately.

Deputy Keane prefaced his remarks by saying that the machinery available—to use his own words, I think he said the machinery at hand—should be used for the purpose of freezing prices. I hold that is an admission that the machinery is already there and that there is no great need to amend this Bill or the legislation in existence in order to achieve that object.

Charges have been levelled against the Opposition Deputies who spoke in this debate that they are not taking cognisance of the facts and that they are trying to plead their case on the make-believe, as it is termed, that this Party did nothing while it was in office to keep prices down. Before the present Government took office, and this is well known to everybody, very definite promises were made that not merely would they keep down prices but they would reduce them considerably. In respect of one prominent member of the present Government, a certain figure was mentioned and quoted. I shall not go into that now, but I hold that the keynote of all the criticism of the Opposition is that the Government did not reduce prices; what is more, I hold they did not even make a genuine attempt to keep prices down by using the machinery Deputy Keane stated they had at hand. Everybody knows that long before devaluation and long before the Korean war prices were rising. Can the Government or the Parliamentary Secretary explain what was done during that period to keep prices down and to keep the cost of living from rising? I cannot see that anything whatsoever was done.

We have only got to take a few examples. Institutions were mentioned during the debate. Institutions are a pretty fair criteria as to whether or not the cost of living has remained static, decreased or increased. In County Galway we have several public institutions. The central hospital is a public institution. The cost of maintenance of a patient there has increased from 6/- to 8/- per day in the public ward. That increase took place long before the Korean war. It took place, in fact, 18 months ago.

I have here a bill sent out from Ballinasloe Mental Hospital to a particular individual in respect of the maintenance of a member of his family, a member for whom I hold he is not responsible. Nevertheless this bill was sent out. From 1st April, 1948, to 31st March, 1949, the charge for maintenance was £125 2s. 11d., and from the 1st April, 1949, to 31st March, 1950, it was £131 19s. 10d. That was an increase of almost £7 in one year for the same type of maintenance. That was before the Korean war started. The devaluation of the £ may be brought in in order to bolster up any excuse that may be made, but the fact remains that the cost of living went up.

Deputy Keane made great play with Deputy Major de Valera's statement in relation to the price of milk and he also criticised Deputy Corry for introducing a motion here to still further increase the price of milk. But he found fault with Deputy Major de Valera because he criticised the Government for allowing the price of milk to increase. Deputy Keane says that we speak with different voices. He says that one section of our Party represents the urban viewpoint and that the other section represents the farming or rural interests. I would say that is true of practically every Party in this House.

I am a farmer and I was here on the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce. I suggested to the Minister at that time that he should stabilise or fix the price of wool. I know how the Minister treated that suggestion in his reply. I know he did not intend to sneer, but one could almost take his remarks as such. He said that the farmers were then getting at 4/- per lb.—that was the price in County Galway at the time —as much for the fleece as they got for the sheep during the Fianna Fáil period of office. In my opinion that was a very poor answer and the proof of its poorness is now apparent. The mismanagement by the Government in the case of wool is typical of their mismanagement in every other line of policy. That matter was used against me at the local elections; it was said that I was the farmer who advocated the fixing of the price of wool at 4/- per lb., thus depriving the farmers of County Galway of that to which they were entitled. That kind of propaganda did not get very far as results subsequently proved. The majority of the farmers of County Galway are under £20 valuation. They sold their wool at 4/- per lb. immediately it was clipped. After that the price started to advance. Week by week there was a further increase. Eventually it reached 7/- per lb. We hear a good deal of talk about the price of Australian and New Zealand wool, and its possible reflection in the price of clothing. Despite the fact that a certain amount of foreign wool has to be used or is being used in the manufacture of cloth here, at the same time it is on the price of Irish wool that the manufacturers, the wholesalers and the retailers go in order to put up the price of the suit length; and nobody can deny that.

What is the position in County Galway now? The farmer with 20 sheep sold his wool at 4/- per lb. Taking the average weight of a fleece at 7 lbs., it means that he got 28/- for each fleece—a price he never expected he would see, I will quite admit, but the man who could afford to hold on and take a chance is now getting 10/- a lb. for it. That means that for a 7-lb. fleece he is getting £3 10s. as against the 28/- which his poorer neighbour got. The difference is £2 2s. in the price of the fleece. As I say, the price reached 7/- a lb. in the month of September. What happened then? We were given to understand, at any rate, that a conference of the woollen interests was being called by the Department of Industry and Commerce. Naturally enough a number of people down the country got it into their heads that this meant that wool was then about to be controlled. The wool agents and the wool merchants took full advantage of that, I can tell you. They carried on the old trick of closing down altogether for a few days with the result that a number of people who had held on to the wool brought it in and sold it wherever they could at 5/6 or 5/- a lb. Then we were told after another week or so that the conference had broken down. If the Government, the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary, try to defend that kind of shilly-shallying tactics, robbing the farmers of County Galway, after we had been told that a number of the farmers who held it over were justly entitled to get what they could and I was being twitted and held up to public ridicule in County Galway— I do not see on what score such tactics can be defended. But that is not all.

On the 20 sheep whose fleece the farmer sold at 4/- a lb. he lost £2 2s. 0d. per fleece, or a total sum of £42 in hard cash. To farmers in other parts of the country that may seem an insignificant sum, but what is the position going to be now? He is going to lose at the other end as well. He is going to pay at least 50 per cent. more for clothes for his children and himself than he paid this time 12 months. For the purposes of easy calculation, we shall say that he paid £10 for each suit of clothes required by himself and four members of his family last year. This year he will be obliged to pay £15 per suit length. That will mean £25 more added on to the £42 he has already lost, and the Department of Industry and Commerce does nothing about it. I stood up in this House, as I said, and knowing the position in the past, knowing how the farmers had been so often tricked in respect of this commodity, I had no hesitation whatsoever in taking that unpopular step of seriously asking the Minister for Industry and Commerce on that occasion last July to control wool at 4/- and 5/- per lb. As I say, I got what I might term, although I know it was not intentionally, a sneering reply. It is not alone the farmer who sold the wool that will be hit. This will hit every person in town and country. The Government could easily at that time have controlled wool at, say, 5/- per lb.

I do not believe that it would be outside the bounds of possibility for them to have set up an agency whereby they would hand over to the wool manufacturers of this country their requirements based on what they manufactured the previous year. They could have at the same time exported the surplus and got the highest price possible for it. With such money as they received in excess of 5/- per lb. they could have subsidised the wool they handed over to the manufacturers and given it to them at the same price they purchased wool in 1949. In that way the manufacturers would have no case to come to the Minister for Industry and Commerce to ask for any increase under that heading. That is the position as I see it in respect to wool.

Then we have the Government coming along here, telling us that everything possible was done to keep down the cost of living, and that it was only when circumstances over which the Government had no control intervened, that they were forced to introduce the measure now before the House.

My charge against the Government is not so much their failure to reduce the cost of living as they promised prior to the 1948 elections; my charge against them, and it is the charge of every Deputy. I am sure who sits on this side of the house, is that they failed to take any steps whatever to keep it static or keep it controlled despite the fact that, according to Deputy Keane and others, they had the machinery at hand to do so.

There are other matters of which I could speak—the fuel situation, for instance, which has had such a sad history that it scarcely need be referred to. Nevertheless, the Government came in here in 1948 and threw all the drochmheas they possibly could on hand-won turf. They actually abolished it.

They certainly did not. You know perfectly well that that decision was taken by the last Government.

I know what I am talking about.

Can you read? If you are able to read you will know who was responsible for that.

I am well able to read and I want no tutor at all.

Perhaps I am as well able to read as Deputy McQuillan. Why did they not go on with the machinewon turf or the semi-automatic machine-won turf? Why did they not develop the bogs so that the machines could be used? In 1949 they almost abandoned it altogether and Deputy McQuillan knows that very well. They abandoned in 1949 a number of the bogs on which they had machines in 1948. In fact, they offered the machines for sale to private individuals. I wonder will Deputy McQuillan deny that fact.

It is easy to talk and to say that everything was done. Everything was not done and the result of it all is that the people were so discouraged by the line of action that the Government took in 1948 that the majority of those who were producing turf left the country and emigrated to England, America and elsewhere, with the result that, if we are faced with another crisis to-morrow, the big difficulty, the only difficulty, in dealing with the fuel situation in the coming year will be lack of labour. They were driven out of the country by the policy that was put into operation by the present Government and backed by Deputy McQuillan, Labour and all the others. That is something that they cannot get away from.

I suppose that speech is for the Connacht Tribune.

I am not nearly as well in with the Connacht Tribune, I am sure, as Deputy McQuillan is, and I never was.

You got a fair crack of the whip from them.

If the Deputy does not cease interrupting I will have to take serious notice.

I am only putting him right.

I am telling the Deputy that if he does not cease interrupting I will take serious notice.

It is all very well, a Chinn Chomhairle, to interrupt me here in this House——

But it is a different matter when Deputy McQuillan goes down amongst his constituents in South Roscommon or West Galway. He plays a very different tune. It is not the same statements that he will make to those people as he will make in this House to justify his going into the Lobby with the Government.

I do not change any statements.

This is a serious matter and it has to be tackled in a very serious way. The freezing of prices could have been done in an easy and gradual way if the machinery that was already to hand was used, as was explained by Deputy Keane. That has not been done. We are to get an advisory committee. We have had committees and commissions on every acute problem that confronted the country since the present Government took office. Emigration was to be stemmed, if not altogether stopped. We have had a Commission on Emigration for the last two years and nine months and we are still awaiting their report. It is a case of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. There are commissions on various other things. Now we get another commission under a different title—an advisory committee, that will inquire into prices and all the rest of it. Deputy McGrath pointed out last week that we had a commission to inquire into the flour milling industry. Their report has not yet come to hand.

Are those who are being hit by rising costs expected to wait another three or four years until the advisory committee examines the cost of raw material, the cost of manufacture, the cost of the finished article, the cost to the wholesaler, the cost to the retailer and the cost to the consumer? If so, I say that the cost of living will continue to soar and wages will continue after them. If the machinery that is to hand is not used in a proper and discreet fashion, used as was originally intended and operated under Fianna Fáil, the fact of appointing an advisory committee will not be very helpful and those who are finding it difficult to carry on at the present time will find their position quite impossible.

There is no reason in the world, I think, why we on this side of the House should support this Bill or allow it to pass without a division, because the fact remains that we are charging the Government, and charging them correctly, with neglect of a fundamental duty in not giving effect to their promise, not merely to reduce prices, but to keep them to their proper level.

I intervene in this debate only for the purpose of trying to set the debate in a correct perspective, so as to enable the House to discuss this whole matter against the background of the wage and price policy of the Fianna Fáil Party. In 1939 we were told in this House on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Government that it was the policy of that Government to peg wages and to peg prices. We had a declaration then on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Government that nobody would be allowed to make unreasonable profits out of the war, and that nobody would be allowed to get away with profits which were unjustified. The general intention then, as expressed by those who spoke for the Fianna Fáil Party, was that prices would be rigidly controlled on the one hand, and the justification for that was stated to be the freezing of wages on the other hand.

Everybody who has been familiar with the circumstances from 1939 to 1946 knows perfectly well that, whatever that policy may have been in conception, it was a dismal and a ghastly failure so far as the workers of this country were concerned. As one surveyed the operation of that policy during the seven years from 1939 to 1946, one got one clear picture before his eyes, that those who were producing and marketing goods were being allowed to get away with inordinate and extortionate profits on the one hand, that they accumulated wealth that they never previously dreamt of, while on the other hand, the mass of the working people, the small men of no power and no property were held vice-like to a standard of living which is a reproach to any civilized Government.

What was the position at the end of 1946? Is there any worker or any apologist for the Fianna Fáil Party who will dare to contend that, taking the period from 1939 to 1946, any worker was better off in 1946 than he was in 1939? Is not it as plain as a pikestaff that during that period, so far as the workers were concerned, they endured economic crucifixion at the hands of the Fianna Fáil Government because their wages were kept low while, on the other hand, we had created a new hierarchy of wealthy people, arrogant in their wealth, arrogant in their opulence, challenging anybody who dared to question their right to make extortionate profits, yes, and threatening with a cheque book at election times because one dared to question the profits that these people were allowed to make under the Fianna Fáil Government.

Will Deputy Kissane or anybody else in the Fianna Fáil Party tell me, in 1950, that it was for keeping prices low that a bunch of industrialists in this city issued an appeal for funds on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party at the last election in order to keep that Party in power? Was that done in appreciation of the Government controlling prices or is it not more likely that that was done in appreciation of the way in which the workers' standard of living was depressed while the wealthy elements of the community were allowed to get away with a bundle of swag that astonished even themselves? Yet, in the face of these facts, which are incontrovertible, we get Deputies on the Fianna Fáil Benches upbraiding this Government because it is not controlling prices.

I have before me a trade union publication which declares that the operation of the Fianna Fáil wage fixing policy was such that living standards were depressed so much that by the beginning of 1947 real wages were more than one-fifth below pre-war level and that was the result brought about by the wage and price fixing policy of the Fianna Fáil Party.

We have further evidence. Here is a chart prepared by the Central Office of Statistics. This chart shows the rise in the cost of living; it shows the wages of workers in transport and the wages of workers in industrial undertakings. Deputies can see here on this chart the effects. Here is the rise in prices described by this curve; here is a curve showing the wages of the industrial workers. That gap, that balloon, represents the Fianna Fáil policy of keeping wages down, on the one hand, whilst allowing prices to rise in that balloon-like manner, on the other hand. Every portion of that balloon represents hardship so far as the wage-earning classes of the community are concerned. That chart is available for anyone who wants to inspect it. It ought to bring a blush of shame to the face of anyone who attempts to defend the wage fixing policy of the Fianna Fáil Party.

I say here and now that the declaration which was made in 1939, that we were going to have controlled wages, on the one hand, and controlled prices, on the other hand, represents the biggest political swindle ever put over on the workers. The effect was to depress their standard of living, whilst those already well endowed with this world's goods were allowed to line their pockets and to amass wealth they never thought they would own.

What was the position when we took office? We found the workers, as this trade union document says, with their real wages lower by one-fifth than they were in 1939. They had just come out of the evil effects of a wage-freezing policy, a policy which stripped their wardrobes and their very houses and left them no reservoir of accumulated goods.

That was the position in 1948. On taking office we realised that this vicious policy of wage freezing should not be countenanced in any circumstances. One of our first acts was to recognise the fact that the standard of living of the workers had been reduced, that in 1948 that standard was less than it was in 1939. We sought to make amends and provide compensation by a generous approach to the whole problem of wages, an approach which resulted in our giving, so far as we were employers, increases to a variety of public servants, sanctioning increases for road workers, approving increases for agricultural workers, and generally showing that our line of policy in the economic field was in the direction of enabling workers to get compensation for the increased cost of living and for the sacrifices which they had made during the war period.

Would that have been the policy if the cheques of the industrialists had secured the return of the Fianna Fáil Party in 1948? Will anybody dare to say that that would have been the policy? We have here in the Dáil Report of the 15th October, 1947, a declaration from the then Taoiseach, Mr. de Valera. After referring to the situation which was developing the then Taoiseach indicated, on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Government, that that Government, not satisfied with the hardships they had inflicted on the workers from 1939 to 1946, were again beginning to sharpen their swords to give battle for a new wage freeze. He then announced, in column 389 on the 15th October, speaking of the Fianna Fáil Government:

"The Government regards this temporary limitation of wage increases as vitally necessary in present circumstances, and if the trade unions cannot undertake such an agreement as I have outlined, either because there is not unanimity amongst them or because their rules prevent the union executive entering into firm commitments of this nature, then the Government will produce proposals for legislation to the same effect."

In other words, in October, 1947, the Taoiseach in the Fianna Fáil Government was declaring that if the workers would not voluntarily agree to continue to bear the unreasonable sacrifices which Fianna Fáil had imposed upon them from 1939 to 1946, then the Fianna Fáil Government was going to reimpose by legislation another wage freezing policy.

One can imagine what the effect of that would be if it had been in operation for the past two years and nine months. That was to be the economic policy of the Fianna Fáil Party in 1947. Happily, an outraged electorate made sure they would never implement it. Not even the cheques of the industrialists, who got rich under Fianna Fáil, could save the Fianna Fáil Party from the anger of the electorate at that time. So far as the ordinary workers are concerned, so far as the men who depend on wages and salaries are concerned, the choice for them in 1948 was a continuance of Fianna Fáil wage freezing and that would have been in operation and they can measure the plight to which they would have been reduced, with wages frozen and prices permitted to rise.

It is against that background that the House has to consider this matter. I can understand Deputies who may want this Government to go further in this or that direction; I can understand and appreciate that point of view, but let nobody be so politically foolish as to imagine that the remedy is to put that Government back, to freeze by legislation the wages of the workers, and yet, with an hypocrisy that is probably without parallel, plead at the same time, as that Party does plead, that it is concerned with the welfare of the workers.

Let us take the situation as it developed from 1948. As Deputy Keane has said, when we came into office we found the butter ration as low as two ozs. of butter, and tea was a smaller ration than it is to-day. After a short time in office we increased these rations and they are higher to-day than ever they were during the Fianna Fáil period from the point of rationing onwards.

In addition to that, we repealed the penal taxes which the Fianna Fáil Party imposed on tobacco, on cigarettes, on cinema seats and on the beverages which the ordinary workers consume, and we did that at a cost of £6,000,000. I can tell Deputy Kissane for the Fianna Fáil Party that many Fianna Fáil supporters around the country were extremely pleased that there was in office a Government which gave them these simple luxuries at a lesser price than their Fianna Fáil friends would do.

There has been in this debate criticism of the index figure. The Parliamentary Secretary's speech in connection with this Bill has been grossly misrepresented, if not deliberately twisted to give the impression that he said something other than what he did in fact say. Now, let us look at this cost-of-living index figure. At best, it purports to be nothing more than a rough and ready means of measuring price movements. It does not purport in any way, and it never did, to be a scientific method of measuring the cost of living of any family, of even an average family. Its purpose was to indicate, in a broad way, without measuring the extent of family expenditure, the movement of retail prices. Someone has already suggested that it should never, in fact, be described as a cost-of-living index figure because it does not measure, and never purported to measure, the cost of living. It was the British who originally called it a cost-of-living index figure. We inherited the figure and the machinery from the British. They have since described it as an index of retail prices. We continue, however, to call it what it really is not, namely, a cost-of-living index figure.

Now, it has been suggested and, of all persons by Deputy Lemass, that he has no faith in a cost-of-living index figure. What he did not tell the House was that in 1947 his Government was responsible for introducing the present method of compiling the cost-of-living index figure. They selected the commodities to be priced; they selected the method of ascertaining the prices of these commodities; they selected the method of weighting these commodities, and they devised the machinery to give us the final index figure. All that was done by Fianna Fáil and under Fianna Fáil. It is being done to-day by the very same people whom they appointed to do it, and, whatever imperfections it has to-day, were imperfections which were breathed into that whole method by the Party opposite that was responsible for creating the mechanism. Yet, they pretend now to have no use for their own brain child, the 1947 method of ascertaining the cost-of-living index figure.

I say that is dishonest politics. I say that it is sheer hypocrisy to pretend now that we have done something with the index figure when they know, if they spoke the truth, that the index figure operating to-day is the index figure produced by the mechanism created by the Fianna Fáil Government. I say it is fraudulent to pretend to believe that the index figure has in any way been altered by this Government. The Government does not touch the index figure; it is not concerned with it; it is a pure mathematical calculation made in accordance with the formula designed by the Fianna Fáil Government.

What the Parliamentary Secretary said in this debate, and what cannot be challenged by reference to the Fianna Fáil price index mechanism, is that between August, 1947, and August, 1950, that index figure remained stationary. Some figures moved up, and others moved down, but over that period it remained stationary. It gave in 1947 the same result as in 1950, and vice versa, and it gave it by employing exactly the same type of operation as that designed by the Fianna Fáil Party.

When the Parliamentary Secretary said that, he told the merest and the barest truth, and when the trade unions, which raised this matter at the Labour Court and had the benefit of a consultation with the Director of Statistics, examined this whole question of the index figure, they did not attempt to make any case that the index figure was other than what we said it was, a rough and ready method of measuring price movements. The figure which it produced in August, 1950, therefore, is as accurate as whatever the figure was in August, 1947.

Since August, 1950 there has been a change. We are fools if we do not recognise the changes which have been brought about. The first change was devaluation in September, 1949. It was then believed that devaluation would have immediate and serious consequences for those countries in the sterling area which were compelled to buy either manufactured goods or raw materials from the dollar area. Happily, so far as we were concerned, the worst prognostications did not materialise for a long time. We were able to buy at the old prices, or to rely on supplies which had been bought before devaluation. In other words, we in this country had delayed action effect so far as devaluation was concerned. It was only in recent months that evidence was forthcoming of the increased prices which will have to be paid for commodities in which there is a dollar content, either in the manufactured article or in raw material. The effect of that devaluation, however, was this. It meant that for every £1 for which we used to buy goods, either manufactured goods or raw materials in the dollar area, instead of it buying us 20/- worth of goods it only bought us approximately 13/6 worth of goods, and inevitably, in circumstances such as these, the cost of imported manufactured goods, or the cost of raw materials from the dollar area, was correspondingly dearer. Even where we did not buy in the dollar area, but in the sterling area, goods or raw materials which had a dollar content, we were compelled, because of the experience of that country with the dollar area, to pay even in the sterling area a higher price for goods with a dollar content.

Will anybody pretend to believe that that did not make a profound change in our whole approach to the problem of getting raw materials for our industries from the dollar area, or a profound change in the importation of other commodities which we had necessarily to get from the dollar area? Has anybody here any remedies to suggest as to what we should have done in view of devaluation in our circumstances, and particularly those who linked us indissolubly to sterling? In the circumstances presented to us in September, 1949, there was no alternative that we could adopt to avoid devaluation of the £ and that fact has been admitted in public speeches by members of the Party opposite. But devaluation had necessarily a significant effect on our whole economy and devaluation was not alone.

In recent months we have had to face the situation which has arisen as a result of the Korean war. Does anybody suggest that we could have forseen that and stock-piled against it? Everybody who has studied the matter realises that even a great nation like the United States was, if you like, caught on the wrong foot by the outbreak of the Korean war. Having regard to the ever-changing circumstances in Korea and what has boiled up as a result of that conflict during the last couple of months, will anybody attempt to say that we could have insulated ourselves against the world consequences of the outbreak of war in Korea? Is it not clear that that whole conflict has compelled even the most powerful nations of the world to revise their whole economy? Countries which were giving over their entire industrial potential to the production of more goods for export in order to bridge their balance of payments have been compelled to devote a substantial portion of their internal economy to the production of arms and munitions of war, with the inevitable result that the economy of these countries has been partially dislocated. Many commodities which were freely available six or 12 months ago are no longer available at the old price because they are now regarded as essential war material.

We can, of course, if we wish, make up our minds that we are going to import nothing from the dollar area. We can make up our minds that we are not going to look in the world markets for those commodities which are becoming scarce as a result of the Korean conflict and dear as a result of that conflict and of devaluation. What does it mean? It means a complete convulsion in the whole pattern of our life. It means that we shall have to do without things which we do not produce ourselves. It means a complete reorientation in the life of our people. The scarcer these commodities become the more the tendency will be towards still greater increases in the price of raw materials which we must import, and still dearer manufactured commodities, if we feel it necessary in the interest of our national life to continue to import these commodities. It is sheer lunacy to suggest that we can possibly insulate ourselves against the effect of the Korean war or out-croppings of that war, together with the effects of devaluation.

World prices are rising. Prices are rising to-day in every country in the world, and it is dishonest not to recognise that fact. Butter is 7/6 a lb. in Italy; the cheapest meat is 3/2 a lb., and you have to stew it in order to eat it. Similarly, in France, butter is 6/9 a lb., and coal is £13 a ton. Figures have been quoted in this debate to show what the prices of certain commodities are in certain countries. In the United States, the 2-lb. loaf is 2/-; here it is 6¼d. If you take other commodities, such as eggs, you will find they are 5/- per dozen in the United States and, when this figure was ascertained, they were 3/3 here. You will find that in Canada butter is 4/1 per lb.; it is 2/8 here. You will find that sugar, in Canada, is 8½d. a lb. and 4d. here. That is not the full measurement of the increased cost of living because, even in Europe, price ranges are still higher than they have been in the countries which I have quoted.

If all this is happening throughout the world, does anybody seriously imagine that we can escape? I do not think we can, because our economy is very largely interdependent with the economies of the world. We have to buy raw materials from these other countries to sustain life here and to keep the wheels of industry moving. So long as we have to do that, we will never be able by our own efforts to cushion ourselves against the influences and the factors which make for high prices in these other countries. In the situation with which we are faced to-day, and with the danger of increased prices, it behoves us to be more vigilant than ever in dealing with this problem of prices. Scarcities must not and will not be allowed as an excuse for indiscriminate increases in prices against our own people. In the circumstances which have superimposed themselves on our economy in recent months, price control machinery must not only be maintained but, in the Government view, price control machinery must and will be improved, and that will be done immediately.

Deputy Beegan took a pathetic delight in believing that the present machinery was adequate. Other members of the Fianna Fáil Party, when in office, paid tribute to the price-control machinery. I want to say here and now on behalf of myself, and with a full sense of responsibility for what I am saying, that the public of this country have no confidence in the present price-fixing machinery. They have no confidence because they are not allowed to see how it works and they do not know what is going on. So far as the ordinary man in the street is concerned, he buys a commodity one day at a particular price and he sees an Order in the papers the next day, perhaps, saying that the price of that commodity is increased. He has seen no public examination of the question. He has seen no microscopic examination of the basis upon which the increase is sought to be justified. So far as he is concerned, he only knows that the price has jumped since he last bought the commodity and he darkly suspects that it is being done by somebody going into a Government Department and persuading some simple-minded person there that he should have an increase and that the increase takes place automatically.

That does not in fact happen, but a false impression is given of the examination which is applied to applications for price increases. Nobody can blame the public for having no confidence in a price mechanism which they are not allowed to examine, which they are not allowed to see in operation, and where they are denied an opportunity of analysing the elements which make for, and the factors which operate against claims for price increases. In other words, you cannot sell the public confidence in a price-fixing machine which operates in the dark so far as the community is concerned. That method of dealing with prices has got to end. This Bill is designed to end it, and it will end it quickly. We propose in this Bill to set up not an inconsequential advisory committee which can ponder over a problem sent to it for a period of months, but a price tribunal, a virile, vibrant, representative body of three or five citizens, selected on the basis of their competence and on the basis that they are citizens of standing. The function of that tribunal will be to examine every application for an increase in prices.

I would like to make it clear here and now on behalf of the Government that that price tribunal will not be an automatic machine for registering price increases. That tribunal will be expected to undertake the most critical and the most microscopic examination of every claim for an increase made to it, and there must be no increase given by that tribunal unless the case for such an increase is proved beyond all possibility of doubt. If there is to be a doubt, it is the public and not the applicant who will get the benefit of that doubt.

We do not want these applications for increases examined in the confines of a Civil Service office by two or three civil servants, on the one hand, trying to hold the scales for the community and, on the other hand, the alert producer trying to get his pound of flesh. We want this examination carried out in the full light of day, and we want to make sure that the public Press will be available to report the applications for increases and to read the examination of the witnesses before that tribunal.

In addition, we shall ensure that so far as this tribunal is concerned there will be adequate representation on it for consumers. The Minister for Industry and Commerce will be responsible in the last resort for price fixation. There will be no evasion of ministerial or governmental responsibility in that regard. Every application for an increase in price must go before the tribunal, and must be sifted by it, and that body will ultimately report to the Minister, and the responsibility will be on the Minister to decide on the facts as presented to him. This House will still be a watch-dog for the community in examining the day-to-day actions of the Minister in relation to price control.

This tribunal will do something more. Not only is it new, not only is it something that Fianna Fáil never contemplated or, having contemplated it, would never permit to operate, but we propose to throw this tribunal into the full light of day by giving it an opportunity of examining in public, applications for increases in price, and the Government will assist that tribunal in its operations by making available to it, at its request, the group profits of the manufacturers, or the individual manufacturer, who goes before the tribunal looking for an increase in price: in other words, the tribunal will not deal with these matters in a vacuum. When an application for an increase in price comes before it the Government will, if requested by the tribunal, say: "Here is the list of profits which have been and are being made by that particular industry; now that is the background against which you should weigh that application and come to a decision in the light of the full knowledge that you now have." That is something that has never happened before. That is something that does not happen to-day. There is no public examination of applications for increases with that information in the background. But that information will be in the background in the future, and the group profits will be available for the most meticulous examination in respect of any application which comes before the tribunal. I think you will all agree that by giving the public this type of tribunal, a public tribunal with all that information at its disposal and one on which the community, as represented by consumers, will have adequate representation, we are doing in respect of price control something that has never been attempted here before. I hope that what we are doing in this respect will inspire public confidence in the Government's new method of dealing with price fixing.

Every aspect of profit-making will likewise be brought within the control of this tribunal. It will have the power not merely to review group profits but also the power to review some of the rather unusual practices which have operated in industries from time to time in the past. It will have an opportunity of reviewing everything that contributes to the making of profits, including the writing up of assets and the subsequent distribution of bonus shares, sometimes by industries not very long in existence.

The tribunal, too, will be empowered to deal with the question of profit margins. The present method of price control ensures profits to all the handlers of a commodity and the price to the consumer of these goods is based upon ensuring such a profit to everyone who handles the goods; if a particular commodity costs 1/- to produce and if the wholesaler gets 2d., the subwholesaler 1½d. and the retailer 3d., if that commodity goes up in price, they all continue to get the same percentages even though their costs of handling have not increased and, in some instances, they get these wholesale and sub-wholesale profits although the goods do not move from the place where they were manufactured. That type of delicate mechanism, operated as it is to-day, will be brought under review. The rates of discount and the margins of profit will be subject to examination.

We must ask ourselves frankly how many people will we keep on the basis of paying them profits between the time the article is manufactured and the point at which it ultimately reaches the hands of the consumer. We could, if we liked, put in half a dozen more classes and let them all get a little and let the consumer pay in the long run. But prudent people may think that we have now reached the stage and the consumer has reached the stage where he no longer thinks he ought to be asked to carry so many at such an expensive price as he is paying to-day. However, that is a matter which will be subject to examination by this tribunal. So far as the Government is concerned every scrap of evidence relating to profits will be made available to the tribunal in order to assist it in its deliberations.

I have told the House that we propose to set up this tribunal primarily for the purpose of examining applications. We propose to do more than that. We propose to introduce without delay a price freeze. There may be a case for a profit freeze though there are difficulties in the administration of any such freeze; but at least there will be a price freeze, the most extensive and practical price freeze that we can devise.

Mr. Byrne

Will it be a general one?

It will be a general one and the Deputy will be tired counting the commodities that will be affected by it. We propose, in addition, to reimpose a wide area of price control to bring back under price control commodities which were released from that control. It must not be assumed that price control will be at the existing levels. Some people manufacturing commodities which have been freed from control have not been unwilling to step up the prices unjustifiably. Nobody need assume from what I say that he will be allowed to get away with unreasonable margins of profit. Whatever price fixation is done it will be done with a view to skimming off every scrap of unreasonable profit-taking by those who try to engage in that vicious ambition. So far as price fixing is concerned, there is, then, the governmental body. So far as price freezing is concerned, there is in principle no governmental objection to price freezing.

It is a matter of what is the best and most effective way to do it. It will be done almost immediately when the Government has made up its mind as to the best method to adopt. If, after having fixed prices, after having imposed a price freeze, some producer says that the price is too low, then that person can go to the tribunal. There he can make his case for an increase in price, but he has got to know that the tribunal is a watch-dog for the community, that there is not going to be any easy road to quick profits and that the tribunal is not going to be merely a rubber stamp for increasing prices.

So far as the Government is concerned its attitude in relation to profits is this: it wants to ensure that the honest, decent man or woman, the honest trader and the honest firm, which invests capital in an enterprise, will be permitted to get a reasonable return on that capital. We want to permit the decent manufacturer, the good industrialist, the good provider of services, to obtain a reasonable return on his capital to assist him to pay decent wages and to observe decent conditions of employment. If there is unreasonable profit-taking, then the Government intends to rake off these profits for the benefit of the community, either by the reimposition of the excess corporation profits tax, or by some equally effective method of taxation of extra profits. It would be better, of course, if it were not necessary to resort to this method of siphoning off profits. It would be better if the excess profits were ploughed back into the industry. It would be better if those concerned with producing goods would fix prices at levels that would not give rise to excess profits. It would be far better if we could maintain a reasonable price level and if price control does not ensure that we can get reasonable prices without excessive profit-taking, then I see no alternative left to us except to resort to this method of taxation of excessive profits.

We do not wish, as I say, to pursue a policy of profits taxation because of any doctrinaire policy in that field. We do not want to impose such taxation for the mere sake of imposing it, but we must insist that the community will be protected against speculators, protected against all those who in that field have shown the sheerest contempt for the community's welfare. There are imperfections, of course, in any scheme of excess corporation profits tax. There may be better and other forms of taxation. If there are, they will be resorted to in preference to an excess profits tax. It will be necessary to devise a scheme, however, which will not result in portion of the excess profits being retained by those who make these excess profits.

There is just the probability that, this time, the community in its own interests, may find it necessary not to share the excess profits with the maker of the profits but to rake them off entirely so that they can be used for the benefit of the community. That is not a desirable course to adopt; it is not something that we want to do for the mere sake of doing it, but the people who now make excess profits have it in their own hands to remedy the situation. They can reduce prices and not make these extra profits but if, in the face of the public weal and the public demand for reasonable prices, they still go on, Shylock-like, demanding their pound of flesh from the consuming public, then there is no alternative but to rake off every penny of the extra profits. I hope, however, that by a display of wisdom and fair play on the part of manufacturers, this course will not be rendered necessary but it is well to give them notice this evening that there is going to be no more trifling with excess profits, and that the community is not going to be bled by one small section which wants to line its own pocket to the detriment of the community in general.

One other matter falls to be mentioned in this connection. I said earlier that prices and profits examination would be on a broad basis. In that connection, the tariff industries will call for a special review. We have a number of industries which have been functioning for many years past, on the basis that the community deliberately levies taxes on itself to keep these industries going. That was done for the purpose of assisting the particular industry, to help it through its infancy, into its adolescence, and, finally, to reach its industrial manhood. The beginning of the manhood of some of these industries has long since passed and what we have to ask ourselves to-day is, are we going to permit the benefits of a tariff arrangement which allows certain manufacturers to be content with producing 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 per cent. of the requirements of the home market, in respect of the goods which they produce, and having the rest of the community paying a higher price for the imported article because the home manufacturer will not endeavour to step up his production to supply the entire home market?

I think we have got to remember that this tariff was given for a limited period and for a particular purpose, and I think the time has now come when those who have got the backing of tariffs should produce the entire requirements of the home market; otherwise the public should not be asked to continue to pay day in, day out, levies which they voluntarily imposed on themselves in order to assist in sheltering these industries in their infant and adolescent years. Full development in that respect would not only help to reduce prices, but would help to provide opportunities of expanding employment for our people. We have now reached the stage in the production of goods when sheer laziness and sheer inefficiency must not be allowed to send up the price of goods which consumers must buy. If inefficiency and laziness result in the production of an article at a price higher than it would cost if the industry were producing for the entire home market, then there has got to be an examination and a review of the whole position.

May I conclude by saying that we are offering the House on this matter a first-class tribunal? It will be composed of vigilant citizens charged with a special task. There will be no question of dealing with applications for increases in a manner weighted in favour of giving increases. We propose to institute a price freeze as well, but both these things will be done quickly and there will be price control over a wide range of commodities. We propose that should anybody get through that net and still make extra profits, these extra profits will be raked off for the benefit of the community. In the world situation through which we are passing, in the critical times that lie ahead, this Government's policy will be, that if there are hardships to be borne and sacrifices to be made, then the greatest hardship and the greatest sacrifices must fall on the backs of those of our people who are better able to bear them than the weak and helpless sections of our community.

In this debate we had from the Party opposite a declaration that they would vote against this Bill. I do not mind whether they do or not, but let them know this, when they are doing it: every vote against this Bill is a vote against this new prices tribunal— something that the Party opposite did not set up; every vote is a vote against price freezing; every vote is a vote against the reimposition of the control on prices and every vote is a vote against the reimposition of the taxation of excess profits. That is what the Party opposite will be voting against. That is what they can do if they like and, if they do that, you cannot blame the public outside if they remember that they fought the last election on industrialists' cheques.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share