Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1946 (Continuance) Bill, 1952—Second Stage.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

I move that this Bill be now read a Second Time. The House, I think, is aware that the Government exercises certain powers under the Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act, which is an annual Act. It is necessary to ask the House to extend it for a further year because there are powers which it is necessary to retain for a further period.

It has been the aim of policy to try to dispense with the necessity for this Act either by repealing the Emergency Powers Orders when the need for them has passed, or by proposing permanent legislation to confer powers to deal with matters for which it is still necessary that the Government should take responsibility. We have not been able to get this year to the stage at which the retention of the Supplies and Services Act would no longer be required.

The Minister for Finance, for example, still exercises exchange control under an Emergency Powers Order, but separate legislation dealing with that matter is in course of preparation. He also gives, under the authority of an Emergency Powers Order, guarantees against borrowings by certain semi-State bodies. A Bill to deal with that matter is at present before the Dáil, but it is not likely to be enacted during the course of this year.

The Minister for Local Government requires powers under the Supplies and Services Act to maintain various regulations dealing with traffic matters for which he has not yet been able to prepare permanent legislation.

The Minister for Social Welfare requires powers under the Act for the maintenance of a number of minor relief measures which originated during the emergency and which it has not yet been found desirable to discontinue.

The Minister for Agriculture, under the authority of this Act, maintains various regulations in connection with the dairying industry, the meat industry, cereals and feeding-stuffs and other matters. In respect of these powers, it is not yet practicable to relinquish them, and the circumstances are not such as to permit a decision as to whether they should be continued under permanent legislation or not.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce requires the Supplies and Services Act mainly for the purpose of operating price control and the regulation of exports and to continue the suspension of various quotas and tariffs.

I have already informed the Dáil that permanent legislation relating to price control will be promoted when a position of relevant stability of prices has been reached. The Control of Prices Act, 1937, was found not to be sufficiently flexible to deal with price problems in the abnormal circumstances which have prevailed since the beginning of the war. That Act has, in fact, been allowed to lie dormant since 1939. I would regard it as undesirable to revive it or to submit to the Dáil proposals for its amendment until it was clear that the rather slower procedure of permanent legislation would be suitable to the conditions as against the more flexible machinery of the Supplies and Services Act.

The regulations relating to the control of exports are not very many in number at the present time, but I think it is still necessary to retain some emergency powers relating to exports. I have in mind alternative proposals for the purpose of continuing such powers permanently to the extent that they may be necessary, but these are unlikely to be forthcoming in the near future. As regards quotas and tariffs, the existing permanent legislation also lacks flexibility in some degree and the question of suitably amending it is being considered.

During the course of the year a number of Orders under the Supplies and Services Act were discontinued. The most notable of these were the Orders relating to the rationing of foodstuffs, the rationing of petrol and the control of building. All the Orders relating to these matters have been revoked, together with a number of other Orders of perhaps less importance.

From time to time Government Departments are exhorted to examine all the Emergency Powers Orders in operation and dispense with those which are no longer required or serving little purpose at the present time.

When asking the House to renew this Supplies and Services Act for another year I would not like to be taken as suggesting that it would be possible to avoid asking the Dáil to renew it again this time 12 months. While I hope that in the course of the present year considerable progress will be made along the lines I have indicated of revoking Orders no longer required and introducing permanent legislation where the retention of powers is considered necessary, I think it is clear that the completion of that legislative programme during the next 12 months is unlikely and, therefore, it is probable that the continuation of the Supplies and Services Act for another year after 1953 will, at least, be necessary.

I propose to make some particular reference to Orders authorising an increased price for bread and flour. I understand it has been agreed that motions standing on the Order Paper in the name of Deputy MacBride for the annulment of these Orders will be moved during the course of the debate so that the Dáil can take a decision on them, if it desires, within the statutory period.

General Mulcahy

May I ask does the statutory period expire to-day?

Mr. Lemass

No.

General Mulcahy

When does it expire?

Mr. Lemass

I think it is Wednesday next. We are coming to the end of it, but there are some days still left. This is the 17th day and there are 21 days allowed. These Orders of the Government sanctioning an increased price for bread and flour naturally have earned a great deal of comment. Whenever a Government takes the unpleasant or unpopular step of sanctioning increased prices for essential foodstuffs like bread and flour it is not unnatural that Opposition Parties should try to take the fullest advantage of it. I cannot resent that being done because twice during the Coalition Government's term of office increased bread prices were authorised by Orders made by that Government in almost precisely similar circumstances, and Fianna Fáil Deputies did not hesitate to comment upon them. Perhaps some time there may be a different approach to these matters, but not yet.

I want to tell the House the circumstances in which these Orders were made. On the 29th August last the Association of Master Bakers and the Guild of Irish Bakers, that is to say, the two organisations representing the master bakers of the country, informed my Department that the Labour Court had made a recommendation on August 21st for increased wages to bakery workers. Both these organisations stated that their agreement to pay the increased wages recommended by the Labour Court was conditional on either the price of bread being increased or the price of flour being decreased. As regards the possibility of decreasing the price of flour, it was known that the matter of flour milling wages was also coming before the Labour Court. I do not wish to refer further to that matter because, as the House is aware, no final settlement in regard to flour milling wages has yet been reached, and discussions are, I understand, proceeding between the parties concerned. That, however, was the position with which I had to deal. On the one hand, a recommendation of the Labour Court that wages in the bakery trade should be increased and, on the other hand, an intimation by the master bakers that their agreement to pay the increase so recommended was conditional on their being allowed to increase the price of bread or, alternatively, to be given the advantage of a decreased price for flour.

The evidence produced by the Master Bakers' Association and checked by my Department showed that the increase in wages recommended by the Labour Court was equivalent to an increase of 2/6 in the cost of converting a sack of flour of 280 lb. into batch bread. When coming to a decision as to the recommendation that I would make to the Government on the matter, I assumed — and I think rightly — that a refusal of relief to the bakery firms would have led to a refusal by them to pay the increased wages recommended and in all probability to a strike in the bakery industry. I could not contend that the bakery workers were not entitled to an increase in wages the same as workers in other trades, and I decided to recommend to the Government that to enable increased wages to be paid increased bread prices should be sanctioned.

That situation which I had to face in September last the Dáil has to face now. I think it is certain that if the annulment Orders are carried and the maximum prices permitted for bread reduced in consequence, some or all of the bakery firms will withdraw the increase in wages they have been paying, and of a certainty there will be a period of acute industrial unrest in the trade and a period of considerable difficulty for those who depend upon bakers' bread for their daily meals. There was, however, one aspect of this matter that involved a complication. I have said that the calculations made showed that the increase in bakery wages recommended by the Labour Court was equivalent to an increase of 2/6 in the cost of converting a sack of flour into batch bread.

The lowest increase in bread prices possible with our currency was, however, a farthing. With no smaller coin in use than a farthing, obviously no lesser increase could be made effective, but the effect of an increase in the price of batch bread of a farthing per loaf was to give the bakers an extra 3/9 per sack instead of the 2/6 by which their costs had been raised. In order to avoid that unnecessary addition to bakers' profits, the price charged to them for flour was increased by an adjustment of the subsidy arrangements by 1/3 per sack. The position, therefore, as far as the bakers were concerned, was that their costs for changing a sack of flour into bread were increased by 3/9 per sack against which they were receiving through an increase in price the same amount. I want to make it quite clear that bakery firms received no advantage whatever from the increase in prices. Nobody benefited by a penny by the increase other than the workers employed by bakery firms.

The price of flour had necessarily to be adjusted in relation to the price of bread. It has always been the practice since these price control arrangements were inaugurated to keep the price of household flour in line with the price of bakers' flour. If that practice were departed from, there would be the likelihood of a shift in demand from bakers' bread to flour for home baking leading to a loss of business in the bakeries and unemployment among bakery workers. I may say that it has been contended that the present price structure does favour the person buying flour for home baking as against the person buying bakers' bread and the figures available to me suggest that there is some possibility of a shift in demand from bakers' bread to household flour. My own view, however, is that that shift in demand which is more to be expected in rural than urban areas, would be due to a greater extent to the extension of the rural electrification scheme than to the present price arrangement.

It has been contended in the Dáil and elsewhere that following upon the increased costs of baking batch bread consequent upon the higher wages the necessity for an increase in batch bread prices should have been investigated by the Prices Advisory Body before a decision was made. I did not think that to be necessary and I should like the House to understand my reasons for coming to that conclusion. The cost of bread production was under review no later than June last when following the Budget changes alterations in bread prices were made. It has been the practice of the Prices Advisory Body and of the prices branch of my Department to base their conclusions regarding the cost of bread production upon the very exhaustive report made by the special committee set up by the previous Government under Mr. Justice Lavery the report of which was published. That committee went very fully into the whole business of bread making and gave their analysis of the cost of production in great detail. Since that report became available our decisions relating to bread prices have been based on the assumption that there has been no shift in relative costs in the meantime and I do not think that anybody can seriously suggest that there has been. Therefore, any known variation in particular costs can be related to the price of bread without difficulty. It is open to the Prices Advisory Body to investigate the price of bread or of any other commodity on their own initiative any time they think it necessary and I have no reason to think that they will not undertake that investigation if they are satisfied that the need for it exists. I think it is fair to say also that the procedure which the Government followed on this occasion was precisely the same as their predecessors followed on two occasions during their term of office. In April, 1948, the bakery workers in Dublin demanded an increase in wages and, the bakery owners having said that they could not give that increase without an increase in the price of bread, the bakery workers went on strike.

Following the strike, sanction was given to the payment of an increase in wages and to offset the effect upon bakery production costs the price of bread was raised by the authority of the then Government by a farthing per loaf in Dublin. The actual increase in wages on that occasion was less than that recommended by the Labour Court in August last and, of course, the Government then in office had to make the same adjustment in the subsidy arrangements as we have made now so as to keep the overall cost of bread production in line with the increased price sanctioned. Again, in February, 1951, there was a claim for increased wages in the bakery trade and that claim was taken to the Labour Court, which recommended an increase in wages almost identical with that which they recommended in last August, and to permit that increase in wages to be paid the Government then in Office made an Order, a rather complicated Order, designed to sanction an increased price for bread, not merely in Dublin on this occasion but all over the country.

It has been suggested that bakery firms are making substantial profits and could carry the increase in wages recently recommended by the Labour Court without increasing prices. First of all, let me say, that the position is precisely the same as it was in 1948 and in 1951, when our predecessors sanctioned increased bread prices to offset higher wages. If the bakery firms are making undue profits now they were making undue profits then, because the whole basis of control is exactly the same now as then. The information available to me, however, does not suggest that bakery firms are making excessive profits. I admit that it is not possible to give precise information regarding the profits earned on the production of batch bread. Almost every bakery firm produces a number of other commodities as well. Most of the larger Dublin bakeries have substantial trades in confectionery and fancy bread; some of them have export trades. Throughout the country most bakery firms produce confectionery or other forms of bread than batch bread, and it is only the price of batch bread that is involved in these Orders.

The examination made of the accounts of seven of the larger bakery firms in Dublin in respect of the year 1951 shows that the profit on sales earned by them on the whole of their business, including confectionery, was 1.9 per cent., and in respect of 15 representative provincial bakery firms was 2.9 per cent. I do not think it could be contended that that margin of profit on sales is excessive. May I say that the profits which these firms are capable of earning have not been altered to the extent of one penny by the alterations in prices following on the increased wages which have been sanctioned?

There is another suggestion — and there may be something in it — that the costs of production in some bakeries are lower than in others and that in Dublin particularly one or two firms might have been able to carry the higher wages without increasing the price of bread. I do not know if that suggestion is intended to lead up to the idea that a lower price should be fixed by Order for the batch bread produced by any firm in that position, while a higher price would be sanctioned for firms not in that position. I think that would be an impossible situation. The whole practice of price control appears to require the fixing of a uniform maximum price for all firms. I have been giving consideration to the possibility of restoring competition, or should I say more acute competition, in the bakery and flour-milling trades. I feel that the restoration of competition leading to the efforts of individual firms to increase sales by price reductions will have quite substantial consequences if it can be developed.

It will, I think, put a number of firms out of business and tend to concentrate trade in the larger and more efficient concerns. That is a possibility we can face and the time is coming, in my view, when we will have to face it. There is ample evidence that over many parts of the country, retail flour is being sold at less than the fixed maximum price. With the abolition of rationing, competition has developed between traders and they are endeavouring to attract trade by selling flour at less than the fixed maximum price. In Dublin there are a number of smaller bakeries selling bread at less than the fixed maximum price and I think that is true of a number of provincial bakeries also.

It is frequently contended here in the Dáil that once the Government fixes a maximum price for any commodity it becomes automatically the minimum price. That was probably true in times of scarcity but those who put forward that contention also argue that if any single firm charges less for its products than the fixed maximum price, then the maximum price has been fixed too high. It seems to me they cannot have it both ways and while it is probably not desirable yet to contemplate the abolition of price control by means of a fixed maximum price in respect of bread and flour, nevertheless we must encourage any development which may result in firms offering their products for sale at less than the prices so fixed. The fact, however, that some firms, particularly in respect of retail flour, are selling at less than the price which has been fixed for flour suggests that the time has come when we could consider decontrolling its price and thereby stimulating further competition for trade.

The whole structure of price control in relation to flour-milling is bad. The time has come when it must be completely overhauled. It is operated virtually to eliminate competition amongst the millers and to discourage them from keeping their plants efficient and up-to-date. I am hopeful that in the very early future we will be able to devise a system which will operate to promote the reappearance of competition between flour millers. In the case of bakery firms there are more complicated matters to be considered. We have had discussions here in the House also as to the effects upon the business of rural bakeries of the extension of activities by the city bakeries. There may be a view that it is not desirable that the whole of the bakery business should tend to become concentrated in the larger firms.

Mr. Morrissey

Hear, hear!

Mr. Lemass

If, however, we are to make our main target the getting of flour and bread prices down to the lowest possible level, we must be prepared to take other consequences of that kind which may follow from it.

Mr. Morrissey

The creation of monopolies might be too big a price to pay for it.

Mr. Lemass

I appreciate that fully and, of course, there are, naturally, in that connection anxieties amongst the workers who engage in the bakery trade.

So far, therefore, as these Bread and Flour Orders are concerned, it is perfectly true that the Government could have refused to make them. The effect would have been, I think, a period of protracted dislocation in the bakery business or, even if it meant that one or two firms would have paid the higher wages and would have remained in business, it would have completely disorganised it on its present basis.

We have no desire — and I think the House should join with us in this — to conceal economic realities from our people. It has not infrequently been suggested that it is possible for workers generally to get increased wages without any effect upon prices, the increased wages being carried upon the alleged excessive profits of manufacturers and traders. That is a fantastic idea. It is far better that we should appreciate that any increase in costs, including labour costs, must eventually reappear in higher prices. That does not mean that increased wages should not be paid when the justification for them has been established. What it means is that we make our decision in these matters with full and realistic appreciation of all the consequences. Any successful effort to conceal these economic realities from our people can only do damage.

I hope the Dáil will not agree to annul these Orders. I cannot contemplate what the consequences of their annulment would be, apart from the political effects, and I think it is far better for us to recognise that, increased wages having become payable in the bakery business, increased wages which were recommended by the Labour Court, the prices of bread had to be adjusted to enable them to be paid.

Mr. Morrissey

I am not surprised that we had a rather lame and apologetic speech from the Minister in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. It was a rather remarkable speech, remarkable not for what the Minister said, but for what he left unsaid. Over a number of years it has been the custom to make the debate on the Second Reading of the Supplies and Services Bill a full-dress debate on the cost of living. Having regard to the present unprecedented level of the cost of living, it is remarkable that the Minister never once mentioned it in the course of his speech. Let me remind the Minister and the House of some of the things which the Minister said when he last spoke on the Supplies and Services Bill from this side of the House.

Speaking on the Second Stage of the Bill, on 23rd November, 1950 — Volume 123, column 1308, of the Official Report — the Minister said: —

"As a protest against the Government's failure to use properly the powers given them by the Supplies and Services Act during the course of the past year, as a protest against their coming to the Dáil now to request a continuation of these powers and as a protest against their failure to secure the enactment by the Oireachtas during that period of permanent legislation for the regulation of prices, for rationing, for exchange control and building control, we propose to vote against this Bill."

Further, at column 1311, the Minister said, regarding exchange control: —

"I disapprove of this control being still exercised under the very wide powers of the Supplies and Services Bill. I think these powers are far too wide to give to any Minister to exercise without being accountable to the Dáil, and, if there is to be some permanent form of control, then it should be more precisely defined in legislation.

That is another reason why I am going to object to the Government seeking to continue this Emergency Act instead of facing up to its responsibilities and transforming into permanent legislation the powers which it thinks it needs and the requests for it which it can justify here. But our main objection is because of the Government's failure to control prices, their refusal to face up honestly to the problem of prices and, particularly, of this new device of theirs of pretending that they are doing something by setting up advisory committees to conceal their incompetence."

That reference was to the setting up of the Prices Advisory Body which, of course, is still in operation and I think the Minister is rather glad to have it at his disposal. At column 1306 of the same volume the Minister said: —

"The failure to control prices, to prevent a rise in prices up to now, the accelerating rise that is now in progress is perhaps the Government's greatest failure."

I want respectfully to suggest to members of the House and particularly to members of the Fianna Fáil Party that they ought to refresh their memories of the debate which took place on the Supplies and Services Bill two years ago in this House. Many of them ought to read their own speeches. I am rather sorry that Deputy Vivion de Valera is not here this morning. In Volume 123 of the Official Report there are no fewer than 47 columns taken up by Deputy Vivion de Valera on the cost of living, in the most detailed way I am rather sorry that Deputy Peadar Cowan is not here this morning. Or that occasion Deputy Cowan spoke or the cost of living. At column 1611, he said: —

"Everybody knows that the cost of living has so increased that the poorer sections and the middle classes are hardly able to make ends meet, and that every person, except the pretty well-to-do, has to go with out items of food and clothing, which are essential to a decent standard of living.

The Department of Industry and Commerce is the Department which is primarily concerned with this matter, and I charge the Department with failure, criminal failure, to do its duty in regard to the cost of living."

It would be interesting to hear Deputy Cowan on the Second Stage of the Bill now.

The cost of living is, perhaps, the most important and certainly the most urgent matter for discussion and consideration by this House. It is remarkable, and it is only right that it should be underscored, that the Minister did not make a single reference to it, did not think it desirable or necessary to make a single reference to it on an occasion on which, as he knows better than anybody else, it is always the main topic. If the cost of living justified the statements which were made about it in this House this time two years, if the Minister was justified on that occasion in making the statements I have just quoted, if Deputy Vivion de Valera was justified in taking up no fewer than 47 columns of the Official Report in dealing with the cost of living; if Deputy Childers, Deputy Briscoe, Deputy MacEntee, Deputy Cowan and all the others were justified in looking for the heads of the then Ministers, the House would like to hear their justification for the present level of the cost of living.

Incidentally, it was on that famous occasion that Fianna Fáil started the ramp — and it was a ramp — about the cost of living, which put them where they are now. That dishonest campaign which was started on the Second Reading of the Supplies and Services Bill two years ago, which was dragged out here for weeks, which was featured in the Party organs and which was continued down to the crossroads and the street corners, that more than any other ramp, that completely dishonest misrepresentation of the actual position at the time in relation to the cost of living, that more than anything else is responsible for the fact that the Minister is moving the Second Reading of this Bill to-day. There is no question about that.

The people have discovered to their cost — discovered too late — that it was a dishonest ramp. They have discovered that, so far as the cost of commodities was concerned, they were on easy street two years ago compared to where they are now. I do not want to go into the price of bread, the cost of production of bread, milling costs and so on, this morning — there will be others to deal with that — except to say this, and it is the most significant fact that has emerged, a fact indicating perhaps more clearly than any other single fact the condition to which our people have been reduced as a result of the enormous increase in the cost of living — there has been a fall in the consumption of bread. There has been a fall, and a very substantial fall, in the consumption of bread. I ask Deputies on the far side of the House who when they were on this side were clamouring day in and day out that we were not giving enough bread to the people, that the ration was not big enough, that the price was too high, that it was not fair to make an additional amount over and above the ration available at an economic price, to ask themselves now what is the reason why the consumption of bread has fallen and fallen substantially. The answer is quite simple: the people to-day cannot afford to purchase it. That is something which ought to give this House, apart from the Government, something to consider and to think about.

I want to assert — and I do not think it will be challenged — that the cost of living is to-day at a figure that it never attained before in the history of this country. I want to assert without fear of contradiction that the cost of living has risen at least three times as much in the last year and a half as it did in the three years and a half that we were in office. Indeed, I think I am rather understating it than overstating it when I say three times as much. There is no question about that.

The people's capacity to meet that increased cost is not at all equal to what it was a year and a half ago. There is considerably more unemployment. The live register itself has fluctuated between 11,000 and 8,000 over the number who were on the live register during our time; but those of us who know anything about these matters know that that is not the whole story. There may be 11,000 more unemployed than there were a year and a half ago or a year ago; but how many thousands are there underemployed, how many thousands are on short time? And by how much has the earnings, as distinct from the wages, of those in employment been reduced in the last year and a half? I do not think the Minister will venture to question the statement that earnings — earnings as distinct from wages — are considerably less than they were up to the advent of the present Government. How many factories and industries are to-day on short time? Is it not true to say that many of our people who were not merely in full employment but were working a full regular number of hours and had considerable overtime to add to their earnings are to-day lucky if they bring home in the pay packet half of what they were earning a year and a half ago?

Deputies may be inclined to query that. I could give many evidences of it. Let me mention just one which I know about and of which I have personal knowledge. Up to a year and a half ago, up to 12 months ago, it was almost impossible to get in this city a factory premises to purchase, a factory premises for sale.

To-day you can get your choice of a dozen of them or 20 or 30 of them. What does that indicate? Not merely was the progress of industrial production not maintained, but it has been substantially reduced, with consequent unemployment or under-employment, with its consequent effect on the capacity of the people to meet the enormously increased cost of the everyday commodities. Deputy Cowan was blathering here a night or two ago, telling us that we were engaged in a war against unemployment. We are engaged in a war against employment and a war that, unfortunately, is being fairly successful.

Unemployment is not confined to this city. It is all over the country. I say — if my colleagues from North Tipperary are not in the House they can be brought in — that there is more unemployment in my constituency at the moment than there has been for a great many years and we have been told that there is going to be still more. The cost of living situation is so serious that, in my opinion, this House is bound — it has a responsibility — fully to discuss the matter and see if it is possible to find some method of meeting it.

I think I am entitled even to challenge members who sit behind the Government to get up here to-day and express their views on the cost of living, express them as freely, if not as fully, as they did two years ago. There is no doubt whatever that in every single phase of its activity this country is considerably worse than it was two years ago. It could not be otherwise. The tragic thing about it is that it is largely due to irresponsible, untrue and dishonest statements which were made by men who occupy ministerial positions in this country to-day. There is no doubt whatever that there are very considerable numbers of people to-day lining up at the labour exchanges who are there because statements made by certain Ministers shook badly the people's faith in the credit of this country. There is no question about that.

Does anybody believe for one moment that men who are supposed to be responsible and who occupy ministerial positions can go up and down through this country telling us that the country is in a desperate plight, that it is on the brink of bankruptcy, that its assets have been squandered in the most shameful manner by their predecessors and continue that and repeat it without bringing about the unfortunate results which we have in this country to-day?

I must say that to those who are in touch with what is happening outside it is difficult—very difficult, indeed— to listen to the man who was mainly responsible for that and who made the most irresponsible of all the irresponsible speeches that were made postulating here for three hours like a peacock on a lawn on a sunny day——

Mr. Norton

That is not fair to the peacock.

Mr. Morrissey

——teetering around making jokes and trying to be witty, but it was the type of joke and the sort of wit that does not appeal to a man who lines up outside a labour exchange or the man who does not know that tomorrow evening he may not be getting something in his wages packet as well as his wages—an intimation that his services will no longer be required or that as from this day forward instead of working every week he will be working every second week.

Those are the sort of things I suggest we should have heard from the Minister this morning. I am not going to weary the House by making quotations from Deputy Childers, as he then was, or Deputies MacEntee, Briscoe, and Vivion de Valera. I would suggest, though, to Deputy Vivion de Valera that he ought to reread some of the quotations from his own speech. He ought to mark in that speech, in the columns in his volume, the prices he was quoting then for commodities and compare those prices which he was denouncing with the prices that are there to-day for the commodities.

I think I am entitled to ask some Independent Deputies here to justify their action in keeping this Government in office, in the face of that cost of living, in the face of unemployment and the appalling business slump. It is so bad that "appalling" is not too strong a word to attach to it. Those Deputies, if they cannot justify it to themselves, will have to justify it to the country. Some of the Deputies now supporting and keeping this Government in office are the very Deputies who were denouncing us for our failure, as they alleged, to grapple with the cost of living and keep it from increasing. These are some of the matters I should like to hear discussed in this debate, and they are some of the matters which I hope will be discussed.

The Minister made no case at all for the Bill and he gave no excuse for not doing this year, not to talk about last year, what he denounced his predecessors for not doing two years ago— scrapping this measure and bringing in permanent legislation. Not only was the Minister unable to do it last year—perhaps it would have been unfair to expect him to do it last year— and not only is he unable to do it this year, but he has warned us that he will be coming back to us again, if he is in a position to do so, this time 12 months with a Bill similar to this. How does the Minister reconcile that with his statements which I have quoted from this volume, statements which he made two years ago? I do not see how he can reconcile it.

If the Minister had fears, and apparently he had, two years ago with regard to having in the hands of the then Minister for Finance these great powers in relation to exchange control, what fears ought we to have with regard to having these powers in the hands of the present Minister for Finance? I do not think it is safe to give any power to the Minister for Finance in relation to anything. I want to finish with the Minister for Finance by saying that if the Government are not going to get out—and they have got clear warning enough to get out— if we cannot get rid of the Government, the Government ought to be able to get rid of the Minister for Finance.

I do not want to widen the discussion of this Bill. It could be a very wide discussion. We have had no explanation at all from either the Minister or any of his colleagues who want these powers continued. We have had no case made by the Minister for Agriculture, the Minister for Local Government or the Minister for Finance for their continuance. We have had references to the necessity for the Minister for Agriculture to have these powers in relation to the meat industry, cereals, feeding-stuffs and so on. One would like a discussion on cereals this year, but probably there will be another occasion for it.

Price control—the Minister is always talking about when we get stabilisation in prices. He has been at that for a number of years and that stability has always been around the corner. We are always near it and just about to have it—it is going to happen. The Minister told us that many years ago, and he has been repeating it since the war ended, except during the period when he was in opposition. He repeated it again to-day in speaking about price control measures, and we are not going to get anything new from the Minister until we get stability of prices—I think he used the term "relative stability."

The Order dealing with building was revoked. So it could be. There is plenty of material available for building now and plenty of building operatives—too many—available now. There is nothing to stop building now but outside local authority building the building industry has been practically killed. It is practically at a standstill. I heard the Minister for Finance and Deputy Briscoe a few days ago asserting that more houses were built this year than were built last year, the year before or any other year. I questioned that and Deputy Briscoe said: "I have the statistics." I suggest to Deputy Briscoe that he might consult the building workers or some of the trade unions which cater for building operatives, whether skilled or unskilled. He will find what the position is.

There is no licence necessary now to build any size of house or building for any purpose. Not only have we enough material—enough in the sense that we have more than there is a demand for—but, as was mentioned here and I do not intend to labour it, we have been exporting it. We were told that the reason we were sending out in one consignment 5,000 tons of building timber was that we could buy it at a cheaper price, and hard-headed businessmen in the Six Counties came down here to give us a higher price than either we or they could get it at on the world markets. The fact of the matter is that the demand is not there for the timber. The fact of the matter is that the building programme of local authorities is coming up this year to its peak before, I am afraid, it starts on the downward curve from next year onwards, but there is no doubt that, so far as private building is concerned—and Deputies ought to remember that it always exceeded building by public authorities—it is practically at a standstill.

The financial situation and the credit situation have been so bedevilled here by the present Minister for Finance and his colleagues that there are to-day in this city and county alone hundreds of houses of all types and sizes, completed, ready for occupation, and the builders cannot sell them. They cannot get them off their hands. I invite Deputies to go out any road from the centre of the city into any of the suburbs and out into County Dublin and look for themselves at the hundreds of houses that are there idle, and then think of the thousands of our people who are looking for homes and cannot get them.

Remember, these houses to-day are on the market at considerably less cost to the purchaser than they were available at 12 months, two, three or four years ago. Still they cannot be sold. They cannot be sold for a couple of reasons. Firstly, credit is restricted not merely by the banks but by the other lending bodies. Secondly, the rate of interest has gone considerably higher on the repayments and the man who out of his salary or his wages, or his family income, could two and three years ago undertake the responsibility of repaying £2, £2 5s., £2 10s. or £3 per week to the lending body is no longer in a position to do so because of the increase in the price of all the other commodities he has to buy to enable him to live and keep his home going. That increase is so great that the margin left, if there is any margin left, in his income or his salary or his wages is not sufficient to enable him to undertake the responsibility of repaying an instalment for the purchase of a house. That is the position.

I doubt if there is a single phase of our economic or our commercial activity here that is not in a considerably worse and more precarious position to-day than it ever was at any time in the past. There is no question about that. There are a great number of other matters that call to be dealt with under this Bill, a great many other matters that I believe it is our duty to discuss here, a great many other matters that I believe it is our duty to bring to the notice of the Government and on which to challenge the Government as to what, if anything, they propose to do in order to deal with them.

Deputy Lemass, speaking here two years ago, gave us the reasons why he was then protesting against and proposed to vote against the Supplies and Services Bill in that year. He was very trenchant, as he can be on occasion; he was very forthright and he was very positive. He had no doubts as to what would be done. He had apparently no doubts as to what could be done. Why has he changed his mind? He has not told us why he found it impossible to do what he thought should be done in the last year and a half. He has not said a word about the Prices Advisory Body, a body he said we established in order to cover up our own incompetence. He has not told us whether that body is working well or whether they are working at all. He has not told us whether he is satisfied with them, whether he proposes to give them any additional powers or functions, whether he proposes to restrict them or whether he proposes to abolish them altogether.

Judging merely by what one occasionally hears in the House and what one reads in the newspapers, I think that body has fully justified itself. I think that body has worked well. I am perfectly satisfied that if it had not been for the establishment of that particular body the cost of living would be even higher than it is to-day. I am satisfied that those in whose power it is to increase prices unduly have been deterred from doing so because of the existence of that body.

This Government has made this country a pretty tough place for a great many people. It has made it much more difficult for nearly all sections of our people to live as well as they are entitled to live. During the three and a half years we were in office we had succeeded—and I do not in the least mind anybody saying, nor will I even reject it, that we had fairly favourable conditions—in raising the standard of life here to a level to which it had never been raised before. The standard of life for every section of the community, whether engaged in agriculture, in industry, in trade, in commerce, in production or in distribution had been raised, and raised substantially, and the people were living in peace and quietness, and they were working; there were more people working, and working gainfully, than perhaps at any other period in our history.

That progressive improvement in the standard of living in this country has not merely stopped since the change of Government, but has actually gone into reverse. There can be no question about that. The standard of living and the struggle to live is to-day a fairly acute one. I do not care whether one is talking about unskilled or skilled workers. I do not care whether one is talking about the ordinary labouring man, the tradesman, the shop assistant, the civil servant or the middle-class worker, for each and every one of them the struggle to live is to-day more acute and tougher, unfortunately, than it was when this Government took over from us a year and a half ago.

There is no longer any hope in the minds of the people that there will be any improvement, for all the indications are that conditions will be worse. There is no question about that. People see only one hope, and that is that they will get an early opportunity of registering their views on the work of this Government since it came into office. I think the people ought not to be denied that opportunity. I think the Government is in duty bound—I see Deputy Cogan is having a smile at that—to go to the country. I ask Ministers and Deputies who challenged us for the whole three and a half years to go to the country, who challenged our right and even our authority to constitute a Government, to reflect for a moment on what authority they have now. They had not very much authority a year and a half ago except that given to them by Deputy Cogan, Deputy Cowan, Deputy Dr. Browne and a few others.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely that does not arise on the Supplies and Services Bill.

Mr. Traynor

That is the same authority as you had.

Mr. Morrissey

It looks as if they will stick longer to you than they did to us. The only reason they do that is not for one moment that they believe in your policy, but because there is no road back. That is the only reason. I suggest to the Minister for Defence, who appears to be in particularly good form this morning, that he cannot, and that his colleagues cannot overlook the latest indication which they got of public feeling in regard to their policy. They cannot continue to overlook that. I am suggesting to the Government that—now that it is quite obvious that they can only continue to make the situation in the country infinitely worse than it is—they ought to get out. They ought at least give the people a chance of saying whether they want them or not. I do not know whether the Ministers and the Deputies on the Government side of the House have any doubt as to what the result of that would be. I have not any doubt about it.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Bartley)

The last speaker has invited us to go to the country. I would remind him that we went to the country this year. It was only when we went to the town that we slipped a little bit.

Mr. Morrissey

"A little bit."

Mr. Bartley

General Mulcahy

Except on the fishing side.

Mr. Bartley

I think if Deputy Morrissey ascribed to this Party the increase in the cost of living I am entitled to show that that situation had already been under way before the Coalition Government left, and that, in fact, it was a cause of their voluntarily leaving and handing over the responsibility to somebody else.

The question of the drop in the consumption of bread was a point made by Deputy Morrissey. I read in one of the newspapers a few days ago that one firm is producing less, to the extent of 500 sacks of flour per week, than they formerly produced. I do not know what the exact figures are but in any event I have been told that there is now no waste of bread—that the increase in the price of bread has had the good result that it has given the people a keen appreciation of the value of bread.

Mr. Lemass

I should not like the Parliamentary Secretary to be misled by what Deputy Morrissey stated. The consumption of flour has gone up in recent times.

Mr. Bartley

I was referring to something I had seen in the papers recently. I should like to add, in any event, that a great many observers have told me that the wastage of bread which was formerly observable in a great many parts of the country, has been very greatly checked as a result of the increase in price and that it is not now a common sight to see half-eaten loaves of bread being cast away. If that is so, and that the people are consuming all the bread which they buy, I take it that they have saved much more than the increased cost represents.

The positive actions of either side in relation to employment and the cost of living are things which can be very controversial. In my constituency we had a very sorry experience of positive decisions causing immediate unemployment. We had a very large exodus of bog workers from my constituency following a decision of the last Government as soon as they came into office. That was in regard to turf production. They have denied here several times that any decision on their part brought about that result. We know ourselves quite differently in West Galway, that knowledge of the planned operations had been already communicated to administrators and supervisors, that the men had been allocated to several stations and that the recruitment of the necessary labour was under way. As soon as the change of Government took place in 1948 that was all scrapped. I think in view of things of that kind it would be much better for the education of the public and for the calm and proper discussion of a world-wide problem, if the cost of living and the standard of living were discussed in relation to the true cause. If world causes produce positive decisions here by the Government in power, while I do not object to the Opposition taking whatever advantage they can of it, I think the public who will have to make up their minds when they are called upon to express an opinion will have to be told by somebody in authority what the real causes are.

I should like Deputy Mulcahy to tell us how they would have avoided, if they had come back after the 1951 General Election, either an increase in taxation or a reduction in the food subsidies or if they were going to carry on the price structure as it existed two or three years ago, how they were going to finance it? I think it is past time that we stopped putting the dalla mullóg on the people outside or putting it on ourselves here. If the North-West Dublin election result is now taken as an expression of the opinion of the country as a whole, I should like to point out that the expression of opinion of rural Ireland, which we got some months ago, shows a much keener and a much more realistic appreciation of the causes of the present condition in the world than any ill-informed urban opinion can be. I do not want to emulate Deputy Mulcahy in his comment on the result of the by-elections earlier in the year but I shall say this for the rural areas: When it comes to politics and weighty problems I do say that the rural man and the rural voter gives these matters, and has an opportunity to give these questions, much more serious and much deeper thought than any urban dweller whose life sweeps along at a much faster tempo. We know that the urban dweller has a great deal more of his time taken up with amusements and entertainments which form a very large part of his life and which have not reached the rural dweller to the same extent, possibly to his good.

In any event, while I did not intend to speak on this Bill, I felt that Deputy Morrissey's very artificial and unrealistic approach to it did deserve some reply from me. If the present Government's courage can continue to be applied to the ills which afflict not only Ireland but mankind for the next three or four years, I have no doubt that the causes for the complaint and the propaganda which the Opposition now take so much advantage of, will have entirely disappeared.

Mr. Norton

I am afraid Deputy Bartley is indebted to his imagination for the rather comforting picture which he drew to-day about the political fortunes which await the Government if only it goes to the country. If the Deputy had taken the trouble to add up the Government votes in the three by-elections earlier this year, and the votes in the recent by-election in Dublin, he would find that the Government is in a very comfortable minority as a result of the four by-elections, the anti-Government vote being substantially higher than the Government vote. That, apparently, has not dawned on Deputy Bartley. He has got some notion that there is some weapon hidden in the mind of the rural voter, and that if only he gets the chance he will show the low-down urban voter, whom the Tánaiste represents, that the rural voter is by far the superior being, and that he, somehow or other, will ensure the continuance in office of the present Government.

The plain truth of the matter is that, within the last few weeks when the people were tested in North-West Dublin on what they thought of Government policy, the Government polled 30 per cent. of the votes cast, while there was a 70 per cent. non-Govern-ment vote recorded in that constituency. Deputy Bartley, by reading a horoscope, apparently imagines that represents a comforting picture. His assurance, that on the result of that election this Government will continue in office, passes my comprehension. The person who thinks that is far too simple to be a Parliamentary Secretary in charge of any governmental responsibility.

The Tánaiste moved the Second Reading of this Bill to-day by making practically no recommendation for it. It seemed to me that the Tánaiste, when speaking on the Bill and recommending it to the House, was rather impeded and confused by the memory of his own speech on this Bill two years ago, because he then said that there was no need for a Bill of this kind and that what was wanted was permanent legislation. One would imagine that, having made that declaration two years ago to the Government which was then in office, the Tánaiste would at least have given us a permanent measure, or the bones of a permanent measure, this year. Instead, we are told to hold on, and that two years hence we may see it. I am not one of those people who are fussy for a permanent measure to deal with matters of this kind, especially in a fluid situation.

The Tánaiste ought now take the opportunity of apologising to the House for the intemperate speech which he made two years ago. It might well be highly undesirable to have a permanent measure on matters of this kind in present circumstances. It would be much better, in my view, to have flexible legislation capable, from time to time, of being adjusted to meet a change in circumstances rather than that we should be tied down in present circumstances with fixed legislation which would have to be amended by positive amending legislation in the House. The situation, in my view, is such that we should still have legislation of this kind. We need it from the Government point of view and from the point of view of the protection of the community. It is far better, therefore, that whatever legislation we have should be of a flexible kind, capable of meeting the lights and shades of the situation, and capable of being bent in the direction required to meet particular needs.

What I could not understand about the Tánaiste's speech was the low key in which it was delivered. For a very important Bill such as this, which up to now has been made the occasion for a wide review of the nation's economy, it was offered to us to-day as if it were a Bill of no importance whatever, and as if it were dealing with routine and trivial matters. That attitude, on the part of the Tánaiste this year, is all the more incomprehensible when we know the profound changes which have taken place in the whole economic structure over the past 18 months. The year 1952 will not be remembered as a pleasant year by the Irish people because, during that year, they have seen on the one hand, prices rise, and on the other a very substantial rise in unemployment. Emigration has increased. The year 1952 will be noted for that. That is the way in which 1952 will be card dexed—rising unemployment, rising prices and rising emigration. Yet we are offered a Bill of this kind with not a single reference made to unemployment or to emigration, and with practically no reference to the rise in prices, except some embroidery references to the mechanics of the bakery industry.

One would have thought that the Tánaiste would have availed of this opportunity to survey the whole economic situation and to give us some picture of the situation we are now in, as seen by him, and into what situation we are likely to move. The position to-day of the ordinary man in the street is that it is harder for him to buy the food which he and his family need, that it is harder for him to get a job and that it is harder for him to keep a job. These are plain facts. Everybody who is not just cabined on a main road knows perfectly well that is the situation in the country to-day: that it is harder to buy food and harder to get a job or keep a job than ever it has been.

That situation has been brought about by the fact that, for the last 17 months, this Government has been purveying gloom, despair and misery all over this country. The recent loan, which was got at 5 per cent., could have been got last year at not more than 4 per cent. if this Government had gone to the country last year and looked for a loan from the people. Instead of doing that, a few specialist members of the Government, specialists in misrepresentation, were let loose on the country to tell the people that the end of the motherland was close at hand and was going to come down, notwithstanding her long struggle, in an abyss of poverty and bankruptcy. It could not keep doing a thing like that without it having its repercussions on the economy of the country. The specialists who were selected for that miserable and despicable task have been able to get for the nation dividends in despair, in unemployment and in high prices. Every time the Minister for Finance delivered an address at one of these functions there was a fog of gloom and despair the next day. He succeeded in running the country into bankruptcy every night he went out to a dinner, while every time the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs spoke you got the impression that we were now just over the abyss, and that it was only a matter of minutes until we tumbled in.

The Tánaiste knows well, and this must be said to his credit, that he endeavoured to put a face on the mischievous and unjustifiable speeches of some of his embarrassing colleagues. The gloomy prognostications made by certain Ministers as to where we were heading brought about a situation in which people were cagey about investing money, cagey about developing their industries, cagey about buying houses and cagey about undertaking these or other worthwhile works, because they foolishly believed that these Ministers were in any way competent to analyse the economic and social situation or capable of surveying the nation's problems as they existed at that time.

We sowed the wind of despair among the people and we are now reaping the whirlwind to the discomfiture of the people. Let us look at the cost of living, for example. Deputy Bartley stated to-day that we ought to look at this against the background of the economic causes and when he searched for the causes he found the Korean War, which he said went against the Americans. When that happened is not yet clear to anybody else. But we had Deputy Bartley knowing that the Korean War went against the Americans and the Minister for Finance recently announcing the secret intentions of the President-elect of America, General Eisenhower, when he indicated, as the Tanáiste will remember in Manor Street—a suitable place for the Minister for Finance—that he had good reason to believe that General Eisenhower was going to get tough with the Russians and we would all be precipitated into the cauldron of war. These were the profound announcements of these two specialists of the Government, Deputy Bartley and the Minister for Finance, who announced behind the backs of the American people that General Eisenhower was going to get tough with the Russians, but at least there was one consoling thought for the Irish people—that Deputy MacEntee was the Minister for Finance and everybody could go to bed feeling that his imperturbable granite spirit would save the people from any catastrophe they might be faced with as a consequence of General Eisenhower deciding to get tough with the Russians. That kind of play-acting is all right in a third-class circus or in a small concert-hall in which there has not been a concert for a long time, but it does not make sense for members of the Government to be speaking in these terms.

I remember during the last election in 1951 seeing a leaflet in my constituency purporting to say that the inter-Party Government said that the Korean War had caused a rise in prices but that, in fact, the Korean War had nothing to do with prices at all, that it was really the incompetence of the inter-Party Government that brought about the rise in prices. That leaflet was issued by the Fianna Fáil headquarters and I would be glad to make a copy of it available to the Tánaiste if he wants to see it. That was the Fianna Fáil view in 1951. In 1952, Deputy Bartley comes along and states that the Korean War was the cause of these price increases. But, somehow or other, the Koreans managed to persuade us to slash the subsidies on tea, sugar, butter, bread and flour. It is as a consequence of the evil eye which they threw upon us that our people now have to pay higher prices for these commodities. Is not all that clap-trap and make-believe which nobody believes?

What happened to prices in this country for the past 18 months and particularly the past six months? In February, 1951, the cost-of-living index figure as recorded by an index devised by this Government was 102. That was the last known index figure before the last Government went to the country. The Tánaiste should not take a bet now in challenging that statement of mine as otherwise he will pay heavily.

Mr. Lemass

What about the figure for May, 1951?

Mr. Norton

The figure for May, 1951, was not out at the time of the last election. At any rate, take it if you want to for the purpose.

Mr. Lemass

I see the catch now about the cost of living in 1951.

Mr. Norton

We will come to that. The cost-of-living index figure in February, 1951, was 102. It is now 122, notwithstanding the fact that the present index figure does not make any allowance for the substantial increase in the price of cigarettes, tobacco and beer which took place under the recent Budget. In other words, the cost of living has increased by approximately 20 per cent. over the past 18 months. If the Minister had dealt with it in his speech instead of trying to interrupt me, we would have the Minister's view as to the way the index figure was moving; but the Minister, knowing that the cost-of-living index figure is as comfortable to him as a hot griddle is to a hot hen, kept off it and made no reference to it when discussing the matter to-day. The plain fact is that the index figure, which was 102 in February, 1951, has now moved to 122, notwithstanding the fact that no allowance was made for the increased cost of beer, tobacco and cigarettes. Everybody knows the extent to which these enter into the ordinary day-to-day expenditure of the people.

That is the situation that the people have to face; that is the situation the people are up against. Notwithstanding that substantial increase of 20 per cent. in the last 18 months, we had not a single word from the Tánaiste about the cost of living or the cost-of-living index figure during the course of his speech to-day. The fact is that the increase in prices, particularly the increase in prices which took place as from July last in consequence of the slashing of the food subsidies, has inflicted a crushing burden on the workers in particular, and on all those who have to live on fixed incomes. It may be said that certain classes of workers have secured a wages increase since then. But the notorious fact is that the wages increase does not meet the substantial rise which has taken place in the cost of living and only partially and very inadequately compensates them for the rise which has taken place even by the slashing of the food subsidies alone.

It is obvious to everybody who cares to admit it that there has been a recession in trade in the past six months in particular. Anybody who goes into a draper's shop and asks the proprietor or an assistant how things are will be told very promptly that business is in the doldrums; anybody who goes into a food shop will get the same answer. All that is due to the fact that the people, having now less money owing to the increased cost of living, are not able to buy now what they were able to buy two years ago, due to one reason, the insecurity created by Government speeches, allied with the fact that the rise in prices left the people with less money with which to purchase commodities.

We had no reference from the Minister to unemployment. Deputy Bartley has some kind of notion that employment is much better than it was 18 months or two years ago. There is no need to draw on our imagination in regard to this. We can quote the figures issued by the Government. The latest return issued by the Central Statistics Office shows that there are 10,500 persons more registered as unemployed to-day as compared with this day 12 months; in other words, unemployment is up by 10,500 compared with 12 months ago. But do not let us stop there. Let us look at the figure for last November and compare it with the figure for the previous November and we find that even during that period, due largely to the advent of this Government to office, there was a substantial rise in the unemployment figures for the second half of 1951. These are the figures issued by the Central Statistics Office.

You do not have to speculate on the situation. Here are facts, here are figures available for everyone to read. Of course, an old politician or rather a veteran politician like the Minister knew perfectly well that this was inconvenient material for him and, consequently, he deliberately eschewed it in the speech he made here to-day. The naked fact remains, however, that if you compare this November with last November you find that there are 10,500 more unemployed people. The situation is worse, because the Government figures issued each week, to prove the accuracy of their statements, show that that figure is not going down, but is going up and up, and once you get over the seasonal spurt in employment for Christmas you will find that the figures will rise again in February and March. Yet we had from the Minister in his speech to-day not one single word of what he thought of that situation or of what plans the Government have to deal with it.

Even these unemployment figures, depressing as they are, indicative of widespread poverty and misery as they are, do not reveal the full picture in the field of unemployment. A large number of workers are at present working part time, are under-employed or are being laid off because of slackness of work in their places of employment. They do not register at the employment exchange unless they are likely to get benefit, and where they do not benefit they do not register at all, and, therefore, do not come into the picture in the figures I have quoted. They represent, however, a very substantial number of our people who are getting less employment than they got two years ago.

If emigration had even stopped or had remained at the previous figure you might try to draw some comfort from these figures bad and all as they are. But whereas we took 5,000 more people into the Army during the last 18 months, notwithstanding that the emigration figures are up by 50 per cent. compared with 1950. Notwithstanding the siphoning off of the employment market of unemployed persons by recruitment to the Army and by emigration we still have 10,500 more people unemployed than in November, 1951. These figures cannot be gainsaid by the Minister. I would like to know from him—and I think that he should take advantage of the opportunity to tell us—what the Government's plans are to deal with the situation. Are we just to sit quietly by and wait for more prophecies from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture or more prophecies from the Minister for Finance? Are we just to wait and see what happens or are we to be told by the Minister what the Government's plans are to deal with a situation in which unemployment is rapidly mounting and mounting in spite of the fact that we are exporting more and more human beings every week and every month, and in spite of the fact that we have siphoned off artificially 5,000 men from the employment market by recruitment to the Army?

It was rather ironic to think while the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture was talking that this morning Deputies received by post from the Central Statistics Office a document described as the Industrial Analysis of the Live Register at mid-October, 1952. Apparently the Parliamentary Secretary does not read this document but someone should compel him to do a little homework on it to keep him away from fancy and lofty flights of fancy. This document does not make comparisons over long periods in some fields but it takes yearly periods in other fields. The document is dated 18th October and it shows that between 13th September, 1952, and 18th October, 1952, a matter of less than five weeks, the number of unemployed increased by 3,330. There is an examination of all the occupations in which the numbers employed increased or decreased but the over-all picture shows that in five weeks the number of unemployed increased by 3,330.

If you look at the picture on 18th October, 1952, and compare it with the figures operative for 13th October, 1951, a matter of 12 months, you find that the number of unemployed increased by 8,147. These are official figures which cannot be controverted. They represent an impersonal examination of the whole problem by the Central Statistics Office. On the front page of this document a rather general observation is made as to what caused the increases in unemployment. We are told that over 1,000 workers employed on the construction and maintenance of roads, bridges, etc., lost their employment during the month due to the termination of certain schemes, registrations for sugar beet campaign, and decreased activity in turf work. We are told that 596 people lost their jobs in general building construction and repair work due to a slump in the building and allied trades. Five hundred people lost their employment in hotels and restaurants due to a seasonal slump. Two hundred people lost their jobs at docks and harbours due to a slump in dockside employment. Is this all not conclusive evidence that the employment situation is rapidly deteriorating? We should, therefore, have from the Government some indication of what it proposes to do.

Reference was made by Deputy Morrissey to the building trade. Now for the first time in five years the building trade worker is packing his bag and emigrating again. He has not been emigrating for the past five years. We engaged in efforts to bring him back into this country to do the housebuilding that remained. The housebuilding worker is not getting the employment he got five years ago. Employment has sagged and is continuing to sag.

The worker is packing his bag and leaving on the emigrant ship for places where he will get regular employment. Nobody will attempt to question the fact that there has been a slump in private building. The Federated Union of Building Employers have not only acknowledged that fact but have said that many of those engaged in that business were forced to seek the protection of the courts because their indebtedness in respect of their activities was beyond their capacity to meet. We have yet another example of the slump in the building trade due to the Government action in paying 5 per cent. on the recent loan while loans under the Small Dwellings Act are now carrying substantially increased interest charges and a larger number of people who could and would have bought their houses under the previous rate of interest have been compelled to abandon their earlier intentions with the result that there is less demand for houses, less employment for building trade workers and consequent unemployment in all the areas where employment is generated by the building of a new house in this country.

I think we have taken the quickest possible step to kill building by private enterprise in the country because the present interest charges are beyond the capacity of the lower and middle-income groups to pay. They will not be able to pay the present charges under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act for the purchase of houses. That will inevitably result in a falling off in the demand for houses and, consequently, in the building of houses. By our action in increasing the rates of interest under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, we have done a great deal in a short time by that one move to kill private housebuilding for the lower and middle-income groups for whom, let it be known clearly, the local authorities will not provide houses at all.

Not only have we succeeded in taking a substantial step towards killing private housebuilding but, by increasing the interest charges, we have also said to the local authorities: "You will pay more money for whatever sums of money you borrow for housebuilding in the future, and as a result of that you will be compelled to charge higher rents for the houses which you build for the accommodation of those who are not able to provide houses for themselves." We have not, therefore, merely kicked the private housebuilder out of the market and kicked out of the market the potential house purchaser, but even in respect of the local authorities we have said to them: "If you borrow money in the future to build houses for people who need them in your area you will have to pay higher interest charges and, therefore, you will have to charge higher rents as well." That is the situation which confronts every local authority in the country to-day.

The Minister made reference to the prices of bread and flour and made what I thought was one slick reference to the fact that what he did recently was in conformity with what was done by the previous Government in 1948 and 1951. I am quite sure it was an accident on the Minister's part—not done by design—that he omitted to mention, of course, that there was no Prices Tribunal in 1948 and there was no Prices Tribunal functioning in 1951. Therefore the previous Government could not have referred the matter to a prices tribunal. But the Minister had a prices tribunal available to him; nevertheless, he did not avail of the opportunity of asking the tribunal to examine the matter, and I did not know that there was such urgency about the situation that it would not have stood an examination by the Prices Tribunal. It may well be that in some of these cases an increase in wages may necessitate an increase in prices.

To the extent that that is true and even to the extent that it is incontestable it is all the more reason why the case should be publicly examined, because not merely have we to endeavour to control prices and keep prices at the steadiest level possible, but we must also allow the public to understand all the factors which go into price movements and which have a bearing on whatever the price level is at a particular time. The more necessary it is for an increase in price to be authorised, the more necessary it is that the case should be heard publicly so that the public will know the facts and not need to have them extracted by means of parliamentary questions which get cagey answers and which, in any case, never convey adequately to the public the same picture as a public hearing can convey, where you get a case made for an increase and a case against it, and intelligent people have got to make up their minds where the merits lie.

I know of no reason why the Minister should not have referred that matter to the Prices Tribunal. He did not attempt to give any reason himself. He sought solace in the fact that something similar had been done by his predecessor on a previous occasion. As I say, he omitted to tell the House and the public that his predecessor had no prices tribunal available to him at that time.

Mr. Lemass

The Prices Tribunal was in existence in 1951.

Mr. Norton

Yes, of course. It was in existence in December, 1951.

Mr. Lemass

It was set up in January, 1951, and the increase in bread prices was authorised by the Coalition Government in May, 1951.

Mr. Norton

If the Minister says that, and if he has got some advice on it, I will accept his word, but I definitely recollect, at the time when this matter was raised, there was, in the first instance at all events—whatever the final stage was—when these particular negotiations took place and when the bakers' union raised the question of increased charges or wanting to know would the master bakers get an increased subsidy, there was certainly no prices tribunal in the city then. I doubt if there had been any tribunal in existence at the time the bakers went to the Labour Court or when they had the first negotiations out of which the increased prices of bread arose in 1951. However, I will take the trouble of checking that afterwards.

In any event, the Minister said he has a good case for what he did. If that is so, he ought to send the case to the tribunal for examination, and say: "Examine that; see what you think of the merits; give me a report and, based on your impartial examination, I will judge what the situation is." But the Minister did not do that, although it was a very obvious step for him to have taken. He never gave us any explanation to-day as to why he did not take what was so obvious a step for the Minister.

There is this feeling—and I think the Minister cannot be unaware of it —that a number of big miller bakers who have installed the latest type of baking equipment are getting away with very substantial profits. Some of these machines which have been installed do not involve human labour at all. The whole of the dough-mixing is done by machinery. The ingredients are passed right through the machine and come out the other end without being touched by human hands at all. That firm is getting for its bread the same price as a firm which has got to make that bread by what you might describe as old-fashioned methods. There is a general feeling that the miller baker in this city, in particular, is doing well. He is doing very well, and there was no need to give him an increase in prices to compensate for the rise in his wage costs, because in these firms—bear this in mind, it will be confirmed by the bakers' union —the tendency is to pay off more and more bakers, because the new machine is doing what the hand operative formerly did. In 1951 one of these miller baker firms—I remember, because I used the argument at the time during some discussion—was selling its bread 50 miles from Dublin for a farthing a loaf cheaper than it was selling the same bread in Dublin.

Mr. Morrissey

They are selling it now over 100 miles from town.

Mr. Norton

In other words, this firm, which was charging a certain price, let us say 6d. or 6¼d. in Dublin, was loading that bread in motor vehicles and taking it down as far as Athy and as far as Portlaoise and selling it there, after that long journey, at a farthing less than it was charging for the same loaf in Dublin. To give a firm like that an extra farthing in those circumstances, when it is able to compete on such advantageous terms with local bakeries, seems to me to be trowelling it on as far as these miller bakers are concerned.

The Minister may say that the rate of profit on their sale is so much. The plain fact of the matter is that everybody knows the miller bakers are doing well. The developments which they have made in their own businesses show perfectly well that they do not believe the Minister for Finance's prognostications of gloom and of bankruptcy. What they have done is there for everybody to see. Two bakeries in particular can be seen and notice taken of their architectural developments over the past couple of years. We must be satisfied, dealing with a commodity such as bread, that these firms are not getting more than their fair profit from these transactions, but how can we when the whole question of bread prices is examined privately in the Department of Industry and Commerce, in the prices section, for which I have no great admiration as to its methods? Instead of having this private examination we ought to have referred the whole matter to the Prices Tribunal. I suppose the Minister is not unaware of the fact that it is alleged—I do not subscribe to the view; I think it was a bad blunder on the part of the Minister not to refer the whole question to the Prices Tribunal—that it would be embarrassing to the Government if the profits of the miller bakers were brought out at the Prices Tribunal.

There is a general view that this matter ought to be examined by the Prices Tribunal, that the miller bakers' profits ought to be examined by the Prices Tribunal and that the public ought to be assured by the tribunal that so far as miller bakers are concerned they are not getting an undue profit from the community.

A close examination of the Lavery Report will show that it is not too easy to ascertain what profits millers and miller bakers make but I think there is a confession somewhere in the report about the difficulties in ascertaining precisely what the profits were.

I want to move on to the question of the Prices Tribunal generally. That was a good body if it had been used in the way that it was first intended, namely, that it should be a watchdog for the community, that it should supervise carefully every application for an increase in prices and that anybody who wanted an increase in price should be compelled to get into the queue and go to the Prices Tribunal and make his case there, in the same way as the ordinary worker has to make application in public before the Labour Court for an increase in wages. There could be situations where somebody has to buy forward when other methods would have to be adopted. There was nothing to prevent a competent tribunal from devising ways and means of dealing with situations of that kind.

The plain fact of the matter is that the Minister wants to strangle the Prices Tribunal, although he is afraid of the political howl which would follow any such course. If the Minister's intentions were known, I am sure there is political murder in his heart so far as the Prices Tribunal is concerned. He would love to strangle it but he does not want the howl which would inevitably arise if he were to do so. It has nearly been strangled. It is not consulted as it ought to be on questions of price increases. It is quite clear that its stature and prestige to-day are shadows of what they were 16 months ago. That is because the Minister does not like the tribunal. He gave utterance to unkind words about it when it was first set up and anything that he has said since has not indicated that his first views have changed. His dearest ambition would be to strangle the tribunal and get rid of it because he does not like it but he does not want to meet the political odium and risks involved in destroying the Prices Tribunal.

I am an unrepentant believer in the Prices Tribunal. The public are entitled to a watchdog such as this. One of the best things that could be done from the public point of view is the restoration of the Prices Tribunal to the position and importance which it previously enjoyed. It should be given a vital function to discharge in the matter of supervising price levels and examining claims for increased prices. That ought to be done in public in every case except where trade secrets are being discussed, if they are ever discussed in that context. The Prices Tribunal could be a very useful body if it were permitted to function and encouraged to be vigilant in every possible way. Its function should be to lean towards the public and to give the public the benefit of doubt in any case where it feels that the case for an increase has not been fully established.

There ought to be public examination of all these cases to let the public know what is happening, to educate them in the factors that enter into price control and price regulation and generally to enable the community to understand that the State is functioning as vigilantly as possible on their behalf in the matter of endeavouring to control prices.

Deputy Bartley made one statement about turf production. He alleged that the previous Government killed hand-won turf production. That is a falsehood, Sir. That statement has been made repeatedly and denied every time it has been made. I put this challenge on record now to Deputy Bartley: Will he examine the files in the Department of Industry and Commerce dealing with the hand-won turf production and look at an Order which was made at a conference between the Minister and the officials on, I think, one day in February, 1948, in which it was declared quite clearly in the minute that was made that the Government proposed to abandon hand-won turf production?

Mr. Lemass

The decision related clearly and specifically to the hand-won turf production through hostels in County Kildare, not to the county council schemes.

Mr. Norton

We tried to get the document, in any case, and put it on record. I do not know whether it has ever been put on record. We tried to get that document and put it on record and let everyone judge, but the Minister knows that Deputy Bartley was taking leave of normal senses, that he pretended he knew what the situation was. The Minister could have told him, if he wished, that he was on dangerous ground by getting back on to hand-won turf production, that in fact the present Government had decided to jettison hand-won turf production in 1948 on the scale then contemplated and previously in existence. I hope that, when he is replying, we will hear some case from the Minister for the legislation which he has asked the House to pass. He has given us a completely fragmentary picture, if I may use such a paradoxical expression, of the economic situation. We are as wise now as when he started. I would prefer to hear the explanation from the Minister rather than from his embarrassing collegue, the Minister for Finance, as I think it would be more realistic from the Minister. I hope that he will tell us what he thinks of the situation existing in respect of matters which have been raised already and others which will be raised during the remainder of the discussion on this Bill.

Mr. O'Gorman

I usually listen with rapt attention to any utterances from the Minister for Industry and Commerce, but straight away I must confess I was very gravely disappointed this morning, and the high opinion I had formed fell completely to the ground. In introducing the Bill, he confined himself solely to one particular aspect, the flour question. I was surprised to hear him say that the Minister for Finance still exercises control under emergency powers on many of the matters appertaining to this Bill. One would think that the emergency having passed over us seven years ago there would be no necessity to have the Minister for Finance exercising those powers now.

There are many points to which one would like to refer on a matter like this. I understand that under the Supplies and Services Bill one can touch on practically the whole sphere of governmental control. I think it can be made perfectly clear—as I have no doubt the members on the Government side now realise—that this little land of ours has never passed through a more distressing period than that through which it has passed during the past year and a half. I well remember that when the inter-Party Government were in power, this particular debate continued for three whole weeks—starting, I think, on the 23rd November, 1950, and finishing on the 13th December. It was indelibly impressed on my mind that what we had from the Opposition in those days was one long howl on one specific subject, the cost of living. I remember here one day Deputy Vivion de Valera spoke for about three hours and there was not an article essential in any Irish household but he had the price of it. He emphasised the whole way through the increase in price in those commodities from the time Fianna Fáil left office. It would be interesting to compare those prices of November, 1950, with those of November, 1952.

One does not want to rub it in, but I think it is essential to impress on those who are now in authority and responsible for the control of Government, and to the country, the terrific increase in the cost of living over the last year and a half. Nobody but a rabid political supporter would deny that during the three and a half years of office of the Government so ably led by Deputy Costello, we never had more peace and tranquillity amongst the people. What do we find around us to-day? There is a general restlessness, there is an uneasiness amongst every section of the community, large and small, and all are weighed down under a load that most people find it wellnigh impossible to bear.

Under the heading of supplies and services I suppose that trade would be really the main item concerned. In Ireland at the present time we have the supplies and we have the services, but we have not the trade. Ask any businessman in the country how his trade compares with that of one and a half or two or three years ago and he will tell you there is no comparison. I do not mind what trade it is—whether it is the licensed, drapery, grocery, any branch of trade or any shop on the side of the street in any part of the country. If you ask how business is, you get the reply: "Rotten." You ask yourself then what the cause is.

Mr. McGrath

Fianna Fáil!

Mr. O'Gorman

You know there is something definitely responsible for it. There is a cancer eating into the business community and people living on the side of the street find it practically impossible to make ends meet. I am closely in touch with many of such people throughout my constituency in East Cork and in my wanderings round the constituency I call in to see these people and I make inquiries. Inevitably, I am informed that business is very slack and that if it continues people will have to let some employees go.

Mr. McGrath

How are Blackwater Cottons doing?

Mr. O'Gorman

In the case of trade you naturally must go first to the source of supply. The mills of Ireland are able to give us all the people want but as the demand is not there, there are repercussions in the productivity of various mills throughout the country. I am aware that all over Cork, of which our distinguished Lord Mayor is in the House at the moment, there is growing unemployment. I have never seen in the last five or ten years, when passing along George's Quay, more people queued up at the unemployment office than I see to-day. That is a very serious matter and should concern us all and should be above politics. This country belongs to every one of us and it should be our bounden duty to ensure as far as we can that unemployment does not exist for a day longer than anyone would wish it to last. I feel that the recession in trade over the last year or two has been due to a considerable extent to the gloomy speeches made here when the present Government took office. People throughout the country naturally take a very keen interest in the utterances of responsible Ministers. I feel that the utterances of some, not all, of the Ministers at present in the Government have been responsible for the first slide into that abyss of depression which has taken place over the last couple of years. The people were frightened and they stopped buying. When the ordinary man in the street ceases to buy, naturally that has its reactions on the mills. The people were absolutely frightened when it was stated by Ministers that we were on the brink of a financial crisis. As an ordinary Deputy I think we are considerably removed from that position.

I myself do not like to preach gloom but, peering into the future, I would say that people will find it very hard to make ends meet if things continue as they are. Almost all our factories are on short time. That is a very serious matter. Another thing which has been responsible for the present state of affairs is that credit has been completely tightened up. Most people in business or in the professions have to lean on the banks occasionally. In view of the fact that the banks were squeezing the people became frightened. People who are quite competent and solvent find it hard at times to meet the "squeeze" that the banks put on them.

I heard Deputy Morrissey and Deputy Norton commenting very severely on the great slump in the building trade. I think that is true. No one will deny that private building at the moment is at a standstill and will be in my opinion for a considerable time to come. Nobody is undertaking any building schemes at the present time except local authorities.

I live quite convenient to the labour exchange in my own town where men get forms when they are laid off work. Being the nearest public man, they come to me to have those forms signed and for the last three or four months I have signed forms for more men in respect of whom I have never had to sign a form before. These men have told me that they were left off work owing to slackness. That is serious. When passing down to Cork, one hears nothing but the cry: "Strike on here" outside certain establishments. That is to be regretted in a country where so many bodies have been formed to discuss disputes between employers and labour. We must ask ourselves what is the cause of that. "Strike on here" means that the employers and employees cannot have come to any agreement and are just fighting it out. That is a rather sad thing.

Coming into contact, as I do, with these working men, I know that they do not want to go on strike. Nobody wants to go on strike unless he has a really definite grievance. What is the cause of that grievance? Employers say they cannot pay more workers owing to the economic pressure on them as a result of the increase in the cost of living. Nobody will deny that the primary factors in the ordinary household of an Irish working man are bread, butter, tea and sugar. They may at times have other things but the staple food of the working men and women of this country is bread, butter, tea and sugar.

Men do not go on strike unless economic pressure forces them to do so. A man when he receives his weekly pay packet of £6 or £7 a week comes home and passes it on to the housewife in order to buy the necessaries of life for himself, his wife and family. If she finds that the pay packet is unable to meet the demands on her, due to the very steep increase in the cost of living over the past six or eight months, she becomes dissatisfied. The husband becomes restless and grumpy when he sees that as a result of the work he is giving in his job he is not getting an adequate return to meet his demands. His employers cannot afford to give him more for the simple reason that trade is slack and business is bad. It is too horrible to contemplate what such conditions might breed. I leave that to the imagination of the Minister who controls the Department at the moment.

My own opinion is that the cause of all the trouble started in a major way with the severe impositions of the last Budget. The subsidies were slashed and the Government stated it was necessary. We on this side of the House maintain that it was unnecessary. Let the blame rest on the Government who were responsible for the slashing of the subsidies, increasing in price every commodity that is necessary for the Irish household to-day.

The 2 lb. loaf means a lot to a man, his wife and family of five children with an income of £6 per week. The price of the 2lb. loaf was increased from 6½d. to 9d. Flour went up to 4/8 per stone. Butter increased from 3/- to 3/10 and tea at the subsidised price of 2/8 is going to any price. It is costing the ordinary man in the street 5/- to 6/- a lb. Those demands on a man's income are bound to cost him anything from 25/- to 35/- per week and that is a very severe strain on the head of a house. It makes a man restless, as I said, and it makes the woman who has to look after the house discontented and breeds in a home that has been otherwise happy a form of discontent which passes on to the children.

Flour is about the only subject the Minister touched upon. In Ireland we have some of the finest bakeries in the world. I noticed that the Minister and other speakers referred to the fact that at the present time the future of the ordinary operative baker is a very ominous one. We have in many towns in the South of Ireland at the moment bread being delivered 48, 50 and 60 miles away. If I may say so, the day of the operative bakers in these particular towns is over. Bread is baked by machinery. No hand touches it and it is delivered to towns such as Waterford, Dungarvan, Youghal and right up to Kilkenny. This is causing considerable unemployment in the bakery trade.

As we all know, bakers must serve their time and spend a long time, six or seven years, to qualify as a firsthand baker. It seems to me a terrible thing that in this age these men who spent their lives in their profession are to be thrown again on the unemployment list due to machine-made bread. Nobody wants to see that but it is happening. I understand that at the moment there is a big combine in Waterford with money to burn supplying bread right up to Dungarvan and Youghal. Deputy Crotty, who is a baker himself, tells me that they supply towns right up to Kilkenny.

I must confess that I detest combines for the simple reason that no small man living on the side of the street has a snowball's chance in Hades of making a living if he finds himself up against a combine. Deputies on all sides of this House have spoken on many occasions about doing everything possible for the poorer sections of our community but I feel that we should not allow a combine in the bakery business with unlimited wealth behind it to instal machinery which, in every town throughout the South of Ireland, is throwing out of employment bakers who have given 25, 30 and 40 years to their trade.

Mr. McGrath

Why do you not get a pony and trap instead of a motorcar?

Mr. O'Gorman

Have you either one or the other?

Mr. McGrath

Why not give the blacksmith a job?

Mr. O'Gorman

I am also informed that plans are in contemplation for the erection of a similar bakery in Cork City. I am sure that Deputy McGrath, who is so voluble to-day, will not be too pleased to hear that either, and I say that in no nasty spirit. It is very hard that men who have given a lifetime to a particular profession should find, when the evening of their lives is approaching, after passing the half-century mark, that there is nothing for them when they are laid off through the installation of this machinery but to go on the dole. That is not much gratitude for men who have given their lifetime to serving the people.

Mr. Lynch

What does the Deputy suggest?

Mr. O'Gorman

I do not think it should be permitted.

Mr. McGrath

What about the blacksmiths, the harness makers and the carpenters? Should we have continued with them?

Mr. O'Gorman

It is your baby and not mine at the moment, but if we were in charge we would do something to stop it. I should be sorry to be under the Deputy as Lord Mayor of Cork in the corporation. Nobody will deny that there is not the same atmosphere of contentment in this country as was there during the three and a half years the inter-Party Government were in power. Those of us who have fought elections and fought them hard for the right to speak for the people can well remember the slogan plastered on the walls of various constituencies: "Vote for Fianna Fáil—the poor man's Government." During the past year and a half they have shown their solicitude for the poor because it is on the poor that this burden falls more heavily than on any other section.

The ordinary man, the man living in the lane or on the byroad, is feeling the pinch to-day as he never felt it before, and finds it harder than ever to make ends meet. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture spoke about North-West Dublin and said it was a city area. If my memory serves me, it was the city areas which put most of the present Government in at the last election and it certainly looks ominous for the Government if they go to the cities or towns in future because there was never more unemployment than there is at present and people were never as dissatisfied as they are at present.

I was very disappointed by the Minister's statement. He is a man to whom I always listen with rapt attention and I pay serious heed to what he, as second in command of the Government, says, but, for once in my life, I was disappointed. His usual cogency was sadly lacking and there was not the usual clarity about his points. He confined himself to the one subject of flour and never touched on the cost of living, the slump in various trades and the very serious recession in the building trade, which has resulted in people being asked to sign forms in connection with unemployment for men who were never unemployed before. I suggest that the Minister, who is a competent man, if not the most competent in the Government, should pay very serious attention to what has been said by speakers on this side.

We do not get up here merely to pour out depression and gloom. We speak our minds out frankly and fairly. We have nothing to gain by being depressed, but we cannot blind ourselves to the fact that this country at the moment is suffering from a wave of depression which I have never seen before, in a fairly lengthy experience. If things continue as they are going, there will be many more on the unemployed list. None of us desires that and it is up to the Government to take steps to come to grips with the position. I hope they will do so. They need to do so, or they will be out of office very soon.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Government (Mr. Lynch)

The purpose of the introduction of this Bill is to continue the controls which were found necessary in regard to supplies, prices, imports and exports during the war period. Opposition Deputies have suggested that the Minister should at this stage have brought in permanent legislation to deal with these matters, but I think it is clear that, in view of the multiplicity of Orders dealing with prices, imports, exports and other restrictions which were found necessary during the emergency, it would be an impossibly difficult task to deal with them at present with fluctuations in prices and supplies as they are. The Minister's desire, and I am sure everybody will agree with it, is that permanent legislation should not be introduced until such time as there is at least foreseeable stability in relation to these matters. He has said on a number of occasions recently that such stability is approaching, and I think it has been fairly well established that, in respect of some commodities, stability has been reached and the diminution in the number of Orders under the provisions of this Act is an indication that some stability has been reached.

This Bill naturally gives an opportunity for the discussion of the cost of living. The Government when in opposition took advantage of it for that purpose and I do not think we have anything to apologise for in making our contributions at that time such as to bring the performance of the Government of the day in relation to their promises under survey. The point made in these debates two and three years ago was that, in relation to the promises made, the Government had failed miserably with regard to the cost of living and that is an assertion I am still prepared to make.

The members of the Government and the members of the Party have stated frequently that the cost of living is a matter over which no Government of its own volition has full control. International circumstances have more than a major part to play in the cost-of-living index figure in any country.

I heard Deputy Morrissey give expression to these sentiments on a public occasion shortly before he left office. Apparently he then realised, due to his experience in the Department of Industry and Commerce during the two and a half or three years in which he occupied the office of Minister there that, apart altogether from the controls and restrictions that he, as Minister, was able to effect there were international circumstances over which he had no control whatsoever. That is the position to-day.

I am not attempting to deny that the reduction in—not the withdrawal of— the food subsidies under the last Budget has had an effect on the cost of essential foodstuffs in the ordinary household and therefore on the cost of living not only to the housewife but to the community as a whole. It is worth while recording, however, that statistics show, and statistics are the only things which give us a reasonable guide to trends in commerce, trade, the cost of living and so forth, that in the last three or four months of the inter-Party Government's term of office the increase in the cost-of-living index figure was almost exactly the same as the increase in the cost-of-living index figure as a result of the reduction in food subsidies. That fact is recorded in our up-to-date statistics.

It must be assumed, therefore, that these essential commodities taken as a basis for computing the cost-of-living index figure increased in price as much during the last few months of the inter-Party Government's term of office as they did as a result of the reduction in food subsidies. That fact cannot be gainsaid.

The Opposition is quite entitled to take full advantage of every opportunity that Government policy or changes in Government policy offer in debate here and elsewhere. The trouble about that, however, is that they take too much advantage. When they get a platform as a result of Government policy they pound that platform until there is scarcely a single plank left beneath their own feet. The Opposition did that in relation to the Budget. To put it crudely, they flogged their advantage to death until not only they but the people outside got thoroughly fed up with it.

Everybody admits that the cost of living is now at a level at which nobody would desire to see it maintained. I would, however, like to demonstrate that we are in a relatively good position in comparison with the position in other countries. I think nobody in this enlightened age will even attempt to suggest that we can so isolate ourselves from or so insulate ourselves against world conditions as to keep our cost of living at a more attractive level than obtains elsewhere. Anybody who has travelled in recent years, and particularly within the last few months, must appreciate that the cost of living here is lower and the standard of living higher than that which obtains in most countries, if not in all European countries. Certainly our cost of living is lower than that in the United States of America or in Canada, though I agree that the level of wages is much higher in those countries in order to meet the phenomenally high cost of living.

It has been said by almost every speaker on the Opposition Benches that unemployment has increased considerably. Certainly the figures show that there has been some increase in the unemployment register. I do not think it is fair—and Deputy Morrissey must realise that it is not fair—to compare the figures in 1950 with the figures in the present year. Deputy McGilligan said last evening—Deputy Costello has said it frequently—that some time in 1950 the inter-Party Government called in the editorial representatives of the Press to explain to them certain aspects of Government policy, particularly in relation to some stockpiling the Government intended to do and to have done throughout the country.

As a result of that decision, which was conveyed only to the editorial representatives and to the manufacturers, it was obvious that there must be increased activity in manufactured goods here. The Government encouraged manufacturers and stockists of goods to get in as much material as they possibly could, in some cases a one year or two years supply. Most companies went abroad on receiving that advice and sought all the raw materials they could buy for their own particular industries. There was a stepping-up in the volume of activity in many of our factories and particularly in our manufacturing industries, such as textiles, boots and shoes and even motor-cars. As a result of increasing output to provide against harder times our industrial and commercial concerns were able to take on more workers but they knew, and the workers knew, that the period was an exceptional one, that they were providing against a possible increase in prices and against times when the goods in which they were interested might be in short supply on the world markets. More people were taken into industrial employment for a period during 1950 than would normally have been taken in.

It is, of course, obvious that having supplied the demands that would be made should a world shortage occur, our manufacturers and industrialists could not go any further than keep these supplies on hands. It was not suggested, nor was it expected, that they could or should at any stage maintain productivity at the same level in subsequent years. That is one of the important factors which has caused a certain reduction in the employment figures here in the last two years.

Deputies have painted a depressing picture of unemployment. We are at the moment passing through a slump in trade and industry but it is incorrect to relate that slump back to the reduction in food subsidies. I suggest to them that their memory is very short if they think that the slump has occurred only since the reduction in food subsidies. If there is a slump at the present time, I suggest the slump was much worse and inflicted far greater hardship in the months immediately after the change of Government rather than in the months immediately following the last Budget.

It all related back to the same point that, as a result of the stockpiling, shopkeepers had goods on hands— goods which were manufactured or made up when prices were at their peak. That is true, particularly, in relation to goods made of wool in its various stages of processing. Shopkeepers purchased wherever they could find goods for sale. They piled up their shelves with those goods. Factories manufactured far beyond current demands. They piled up whatever space they had to spare with those woollen goods which were made at a very high cost—possibly at the highest cost of woollen goods ever experienced in this country. Since then, there has been a reduction in the price of goods. It is only natural that shopkeepers and manufacturers found it difficult, in the months following that stockpiling, to distribute the goods they had piled up. That was one of the reasons for the slump—one of the worst slumps that has hit Irish trade and industry in recent years. I think that Deputy Morrissey—who, more than anybody else, was responsible for that advice which was given to traders and manufacturers—knows that quite well.

I believe that Deputy Morrissey tries to be fair to all sides. Like any other member of this House, however, when he is painting a picture Deputy Morrissey will, if it suits his book, try to leave out certain things which he considers are not necessary for the purpose of the picture which he is painting. I suggest that he ignored that fact this morning when he painted a very depressing picture of trade and industry in this country at the present time.

He did not say it directly but he implied that in every aspect of industry there is less employment now than there was 18 months ago. I will agree with him that in the first few months of this Government's office there was less employment than there was during the latter few months of the Coalition Government's régime. I cannot agree with him that that applies at the present time in every branch of industry. Following the trade recession in the woollen industry, the remedial measures taken by the present Minister for Industry and Commerce have begun to show effect. In many of our textile factories throughout the country, if not in all of them, work has been restored to full capacity output. I know of factories in my constituency where unemployment was rife in the early months of the present Government's terms of office but where they are now working three shifts a day. That is something which they thought, when the change of Government took place, would have been impossible in such a short time.

There is a slump in the motor industry. That is something which I and my colleagues who represent Cork City deprecate more than anybody else. I am not going to make any attempt to minimise the effect of that slump on employment, not only in Cork but throughout the country. Again, we cannot ignore international trends. It must be realised that in Britain the motor-car industry, despite all their insistence on exports, is having a very lean time at present. That in its turn, affects this country. There may be other factors—I am sure there are. The alteration in the road tax cannot be held responsible for the slump, because, in the case of many categories of cars, the alteration in the road tax will mean a decrease in the amount of money that will have to be paid by their owners. As well as that, there is the reduction, that will come into operation shortly, in the amount of insurance to be paid. There is a decrease in the output of many of the makes of cars for which there is to be a decrease in the amount payable. Therefore, it is not fair or right to suggest that any slump which is being experienced at present in the motor manufacturing or motor assembling industry in this country is due to the alteration in the road tax.

It is a peculiar fact that while work is decreasing and while the employment content of Ford's factory in Cork is decreasing, the neighbouring factory— Dunlops—is producing tyres and rubber goods almost to maximum capacity: I use the word "almost" because I am not certain that they are producing at the maximum capacity. I know that many of the workers whom Dunlops were obliged to leave off some months ago have been taken on again. Therefore, that represents to me a somewhat contradictory picture. At all events, I think it indicates that if people are not buying the motor-cars at the present time they are doing as much motoring as they did formerly. Taking one year with another, I think it is well established that the months immediately prior to Christmas are the months when the motoring manufacturing industry, and kindred industries, are at their lowest ebb.

Deputy Norton referred to the fact that there is reduced employment in very many branches of industry throughout the country. He admitted that some of these reductions are seasonal. He instanced the 500, or so, who are disemployed in the hotel and catering industries. That is usual at this time of the year. He also made a lot of the fact that there is less employment at the docks now than there was formerly. As leader of a trade union and as a person in close touch with trade union affairs, I think Deputy Norton must know that there are other factors which are causing this disemployment. I take it that if in a trade union it is found that some members are rendered unemployed, the union will investigate all the factors that go to bring about that reduction in employment. I am sure that if Deputy Norton has not found the reason, it must have been conveyed to some of his colleagues that shipping all over the world has reduced considerably. There are shipping companies who are operating at the present time on about one-third of their normal tonnage. They are now able to manage what trade they do with this country and with other international ports with one ship whereas formerly they used three ships. That is another factor for which no government can be held to be entirely responsible. Why, may we ask, is shipping at such a stage at the present time? I think that one of the reasons is that, due to imminence of war or to the fear of imminence of war, every country is trying its best to make itself as self-sufficient as possible.

In order to redress its balance of payments, every country throughout the world, including our own and Great Britain, is doing its utmost to reduce imports. A reduction of imports necessarily means a reduction of exports——

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

Hear, hear!

Mr. Lynch

——because when we reduce our trade with countries with which we have trade agreements, these countries in turn will reduce the demand for goods which they have been importing from us unless we can produce goods of a better quality and at a lower price than that at which they can procure them elsewhere. That is the object of our policy at the present time—first of all, to develop our natural resources in such a manner as will preclude the necessity of importing goods and commodities that we should be able to provide for ourselves, and, in so far as we have a marketable surplus, to export that surplus to countries which are prepared to buy it from us.

Deputy O'Gorman in particular mentioned what he termed "the depressing 18 months" we have just experienced. I think Deputy O'Gorman should be the last person in this House to refer to a depressing 18 months. He knows well that in his own town of Youghal a factory was planned, built and put into production within 12 months and that during the period of the depressing 18 months about which he talks. The factory was opened, I forget whether it was in the early summer or late summer but some time recently in any case, and, on the very day of its opening, one of the directors informed me that already they had to contemplate expanding the size of the factory in order to meet the increased demand for the goods they produced.

That is far from a depressing picture and Deputy O'Gorman knows that were it not for the policy of the Fianna Fáil Government, and in particular for the policy of the Minister who holds the portfolio of Industry and Commerce, it would not be possible to place not only that factory in his native town of Youghal but to place there the factory that preceded it. I am not trying to detract from the energy or ability of the man who conceived this factory in the first instance, the late Mr. William O'Dwyer, but Mr. O'Dwyer himself has testified to the fact that were it not for the assistance he got from the Minister for Industry and Commerce the expansion would not have been possible.

I think I mentioned most of the points I intended to make but I just want to refer to one remark in Deputy O'Gorman's speech with regard to the mechanisation of the bakery industry. I think Deputy O'Gorman is sufficiently progressive to realise that if certain improved methods are introduced to industry, there is very little a government can do or that they should do, to stop that type of progress. If such mechanisation has the effect of putting people out of employment, I certainly believe that the government should view it with concern. In so far as it does put people out of employment if the government cannot provide alternative means of employing these people, the government should take some steps to control the use and operation of that type of machinery but I think it is generally accepted that in any progressive form of industrial activity, whether it be the production of bread, engineering or otherwise, mechanisation is something that cannot be avoided in the modern world, particularly if we are to produce goods, as we all hope, of equal quality with those that at present we have to import and if we have to find a method of manufacture which is as cheap at least, as the method employed in countries from which these goods were formerly imported.

I do not like to have to go back over the speech I have made but I am sure Deputy Morrissey would not bother looking it up. I have asserted that this Government's record in the last 12 months is by no means as bad as Deputy Morrissey attempted to make it this morning. I have tried in the few remarks I have made not to exaggerate the position, but to compare our conditions here in Ireland with conditions abroad and to indicate that we are relatively better off than most people in the world at the present time. Our cost of living is by no means as high and our standard of living in many cases is far higher than that of other countries. If the cost of living is higher in other countries it is true that it is often met by a higher level of wages but before I sit down I should like to give one instance of a higher cost of living which is presumed to be offset by a higher salary. I met a man some time ago who was earning £1,000 a year in this country and who went abroad. For the same type of service, he was able to command £3,000 in a country west of the Atlantic. I asked him what was his relative position in the country of his adoption as compared with his position in Ireland. He said that even though his wages were three times as high, he felt his standard of living was only about 10 or 15 per cent. higher than in Ireland. That is a fairly good indication of the fact that even though wages are so much higher in Canada or the United States as compared with Irish wage standards, the standard of living in these countries is not so much higher than our own.

Again, I assert, from what I have seen myself, that our standard of living is far higher than that of most European countries at the present time. I believe that industry, despite the miserably depressing picture painted this morning, is picking up in this country, and that many factories are not only increasing their production but increasing the employment which they are giving. It is not true to say that the position is getting worse in every instance. That, certainly, is by no means true. I think that if the position is examined home, it will be found that employers are more hopeful now of the future than they were 18 months ago when the change of Government took place.

Mr. Morrissey

That could be true.

Mr. A. Byrne

I would be failing in my duty if I did not join in the appeals which have been made by other speakers to the Government to deal immediately with the unemployment problem. The depression to-day is as serious as anything that we have known over the past 25 years, and unemployment is responsible for it. Everywhere you go you find that men are being disemployed, whether it be in a draper's shop, a tailor's shop or by a wholesale clothing manufacturer. The same is true of the shipyards down at the North Wall. I want, without any exaggeration, to arouse the Dáil to deal seriously with this matter before further depression sets in causing greater discontent amongst our people. The position in the shipyards is that our men are being dismissed and are going to England and Scotland. Why are they going? It is not because of any desire to emigrate but rather to earn something to send home to keep their families. Unfortunately, that means keeping two homes. The last speaker said that a higher cost of living has brought about a higher standard of living. Everyone in the House knows that is not so. I say that the higher cost of living has made the people go in for substitutes. They are not able to buy the better quality of food.

Mr. Lynch

The Deputy misunderstood me. I did not say what the Deputy has just said.

Mr. A. Byrne

The words are there. I want to say that in the Dublin working-class houses which have been struck by unemployment——

Mr. Cunningham

Can the Deputy give us any figures?

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy can get them in the Library.

Mr. Cunningham

I did get them, and that is why I asked the question.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Byrne must be allowed to speak without interruption.

Mr. A. Byrne

We get those figures every week and can see from them what is going on. I wonder did Deputy Cunningham hear the reply that was given to a question yesterday in connection with the building trade. In that reply, we were told that there are over 500 carpenters and 500 painters unemployed as well as a couple of hundred bricklayers. That was never known before in this country. Three years ago, we had to bring our men back from England to engage on the building of houses here. But now, instead of bringing them back, they are going away. Why? If we do bring them back are we going to give them employment, because if not they will pack up again and go away.

During the last three or four weeks I had occasion—it was more than an ordinary occasion—to meet a very big number of Dublin housewives. One out of every three told me that her husband was unemployed, or if not her husband, that her eldest son or daughter had recently been dismissed. What are we going to do for the youth of the country? Take the motor trade. A number of young people in it, some of them serving their time and others getting decent employment, have been disemployed.

The same is true in regard to dockers at the North Wall. Most people know what the North Wall is like on a Sunday morning. The position on week-days now is that the North Wall is as dull on week-days as it usually is on a Sunday morning. We do not know what has happened, and I can suggest no remedy. I am just giving the Minister and the House the benefit of the experience I have had of a number of industries in Dublin City. A depression has set in and something will have to be done to stop it. For the first time in the last five years, we now have groups of men waiting on the corporation steps asking the members to have work on relief schemes started. We had not anything like that in operation over the last five years. There was no necessity for it. Who is going to wake up quickly and pay attention to this, and not let the position become worse?

When we, the members of the corporation, attend meetings of the housing committee every second Friday we see before us a list relating to ejectments, due to the fact that people are unable to pay their rents. When we make inquiries we are told that the father of the family has gone to England to look for work, or that the eldest son or daughter is unemployed. I have at least 50 letters in the room for Independent Deputies dealing with these genuine complaints, and I am prepared to show them to anyone who cares to see them. Some of the writers mention that their husbands are unemployed while others make an appeal to get a son or a daughter into a job instead of having these young people wasting their time and thus causing uneasiness to their parents. I want to know what is the Government or the public authorities going to do concerning these cases?

Recently one of our shipyards lost a very big contract. The proposed expenditure was something like £250,000. The contract went to a foreign firm, the difference between it and the Irish firm being £18,000. The giving of that contract to a foreign firm means that steel, iron, coal and other equipment will have to be brought in from the other side. The bringing in of that raw material to fulfil the contract will, I suggest, amount to the difference in the tenders between the Irish firm and the foreign firm. I suggest it would have been better if the contract had been given to our own shipyard. Heavy import charges on the raw materials would have been avoided, while it would mean that we would be providing work for our own people. I have already said that I have no remedy to offer, but I think it is the duty of the Government to keep our men at home in good employment.

I know from meeting housewives that heretofore they used to buy reasonably good quality tea and good quality butter. Due to unemployment and the loss of wages, as well as the increase in the price of bread, butter, tea and sugar, they now have to do with substitutes. They are buying margarine and a cheaper quality of tea. Heretofore, bread, butter and tea were almost essentials in Dublin working-class life. They might see meat on one or two days a week, but now these people are buying substitutes for good quality tea and butter. All that is due to their failure to be able to get work for their sons and daughters and, in many cases, their husbands.

I have told you what I think should be done in connection with shipbuilding, that the freight on the raw materials of these firms should be taken into consideration when tenders are being considered. We have a good shipbuilding yard in Dublin at the North Wall. I am sure the Lord Mayor of Cork will tell you that there is a splendid dockyard in Cork which also gives good employment. But they have to import raw materials and to compete with others. The freight on the steel and iron required to build ships is very high on the firm that has to tender. The Government ought to do something about that.

Then there are the young fellows of 16 or 17 who, having left school, have gone to a vocational school for two or three years and who have got a good training from their teachers which should lead to an apprenticeship if things were all right. But, at the end of the two years in the vocational school, there is no work for these young fellows. The unemployment problem is a matter for the Government and not for any special Minister to deal with. It is more serious in Dublin to-day to my knowledge than it has been for the last 20 years.

For the first time we have men waiting at the corporation labour bureau imploring us to start relief work and asking that grants should be made immediately so that the work can be started. I will support any demand made on the Government which will lead to the reduction of unemployment in the City of Dublin. I get a large number of letters, as I know every Dublin Deputy does, from people asking what can be done for their sons and daughters who are being trained in vocational schools because they do not know what to do with them. I ask the Government to do something quickly about that.

I always had a feeling that there was silence when emigration reached a certain height. There are from 50 to 100 boys and girls, as well as fathers, who should be doing skilled work here, leaving Dublin every night. Do the Government think that it is right or proper to shut their eyes to the problem of emigration, that emigration is a remedy for unemployment? Deputies know that from their own towns and villages there are two or three people leaving every week and that these places are becoming deserted. As a rule, these people are not going to America now but to England, Scotland and Wales for some kind of war work. The wages now are not as tempting as they were a few years ago. These people only get moderate wages now out of which they have to send something home. The ration they are allowed is fairly good, but they are not able to buy the things because they have to send money home. That is not good for their health.

It is discouraging for one to feel that people are not bothering about the unemployment problem. We know that it is increasing rapidly. The Minister knows better than I do that in Dublin men are being dismissed every day in the week in the clothing trade. I will not say that the drapers are dismissing anyone, but they are not taking on extra hands for Christmas as they used to do.

What is to happen to the young men and women, and even the adults, who used to get employment in that trade? In the building trade there are three unemployed men for every vacancy. That even applies to carpenters, although we had not sufficient carpenters some time ago when we wanted them. There were 7,000 or 8,000 newly-wed couples in this city five years ago who have now two or three children and they are no nearer to getting a house to-day than they were five years ago. The men who should be building houses for that type of people are leaving the country. I know of cases in Dublin where there are two families living in one room. I know of cases in which mothers have taken in their married sons or daughters to live with them in one room while our building workers are going away and the timber for the houses has also gone. When are we going to bring them back?

It is a matter for Cabinet decision and for serious thought to see what can be done for the unemployed. I appeal earnestly to the Government to do something for the unemployed men with large families who have to go away and then have to send half their wages back to keep their families here and for the boys and girls who are leaving Dún Laoghaire and the North Wall every night to seek employment on the other side. They are going away day after day in very large numbers. I know the Minister is aware that there have been protests from our own people on the other side against closing our eyes to the fact that such large numbers are going away and that nothing is being done for them when they get to the other side. There is no living accommodation for them when they get to the other side and some of our own people over there have to try to do something for them. Then they write back asking us not to allow our young people to leave Ireland to live in the conditions with which they have to put up. I do not say that Irish people are getting any different treatment from the people over there. There is a shortage of accommodation. They are not able to build houses quickly enough for their own people. It is only right and proper that we should pay attention to that matter.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot discuss the housing problem in Great Britain on this Bill.

Mr. A. Byrne

I am talking about our unemployed going to Britain where they have not got the same type of persons to take charge of them as we have here. Emigration appears to be the only remedy which the Government have for the unemployment problem. It is not fair to shut our eyes to the emigration of these young people and especially the fathers of families who are going away. It is a matter for some big minds to devise a scheme which will give them decent employment and a decent way of living and of bringing up their families.

Mr. Crotty

Having dealt with that, the next question I would like to refer to is the unemployment position. In the small city from which I come, namely, Kilkenny, the cold blast, as Deputy Bartley put it, has been felt. I have spoken here before on the sugar industry. I am glad to say it is in full production; likewise the woollen industry is struggling through. But what have we now? The brewery industry is getting into difficulties. I am very glad to say that the brewery industry is famous throughout the 32 counties for its good beer. It was always a question of how many men would be taken on in the brewery industry at a certain time and how many would they expect to take on next year. Of course, in the harvesting season there is always a big increase in the number of workers, and those who are taken on at that time are let off again. But what do we find this year? It is not the temporary workers who have been taken on for the period of three or four months of the summer and harvesting season, who are being let off, but the permanent employees.

I have no doubt that the firm which employs these men is a decent firm and if they saw a way of holding these men in the industry they would hold them. It is only as an extreme measure that this particular firm would let any man out of their employment, but every day they see their sales going down and they can see no prospect whatever of increased sales. Therefore, men who were in secure employment for the last two, three and four years are now going to be put on the unemployment list. This is a regrettable thing. People say that the price of beer is too high. It is high but it is not that alone. The cost of living is getting too high and there is no money whatever for beer. On a Friday night I go into a place where I used to see barmen behind the counters trying to stretch out amongst a crowd to serve people at the back but now it is only an odd person who is to be seen at the counters after pay night. Even the men in employment have not the money. What about the poor people who are now going on the unemployed list? I think the Minister should have dealt with some points like that in his opening statement.

In regard to trade recession I heard the Minister saying 12 months ago: "We are just around the corner.""Hey round the corner!"

Mr. Dillon

"Looking for Henry Lee."

Mr. Crotty

But there is no "Hey round the corner" for these people who are unemployed. The Minister said 12 months ago: —

"There is recession in the woollen trade; we must stop imports. The inter-Party Government had allowed imports; we have closed down on them and everything will be all right in a couple of months."

County council workers cannot be expected to save out of their wages in order to meet hard times. In Kilkenny the number of county council workers has been reduced by 50 per cent. The worst position of all is in the building trade. At one time the surveyor would tell us that it was not possible to get carpenters or plasterers, when we were pressing him to get building work carried out. The position now is that carpenters, plasterers and labouring men are coming to me every day in the week asking me to use my influence with the borough surveyor to have them taken on. That is an over-night change and a remarkable change in the building trade. The cold blast to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred is being felt in the trade.

As a result of the increase in the rate of interest, many people who were hoping to build homes for themselves have abandoned that hope. In the normal way, they would be independent people who would not have to lift their hat to any T.D. Now they are looking to me to see if I could get them a corporation house. The increased rate of interest has to a certain extent made beggars of these people who have to come to members of local bodies to know what we can do for them.

Deputy Bartley revealed many thoughts of the Government. He said that it was most politically unfortunate that they were returned to power in 1951. If it was politically unfortunate for the Fianna Fáil Party, it was economically unfortunate for the people that they were returned to power in 1951. If any one had told the people then that the change that has taken place would be wrought in the country in one and a half years, the people would not have believed it. Deputy Bartley also said that the people in North-West Dublin reacted much quicker than people in rural areas to the cold blast, that these people have a lot of amusements and have not time to consider matters in the way that the rural population would consider them. The Minister should go to the country now. Deputy Bartley thinks the rural population are fools, that they would not understand the cold blast. I tell the Minister that the people in the country, particularly after the North-West Dublin by-election, have lost confidence in the Government. I call on the Minister and the Government to go to the country and to test the feelings of the people.

Captain Giles

Then they will feel the cold blast.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

I was not a member of the House when the present Government were in opposition. Therefore, I have studied the speeches which they made when the Supplies and Services Bill was under discussion in 1950. To-day the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Lynch, referred to the matters which are discussed on this Bill. There were some extraordinary points made by the Parliamentary Secretary. He said that reduced imports meant reduced exports. I wonder when the Government came to that way of thinking. He was referring to unemployment among dock workers that had been referred to by Deputy Norton.

It is worthy of consideration that the opposition at that time had one long wail in referring to the Supplies and Services Bill. That was in connection with the increase in the cost of living. The statistical bulletin gives us the following figures for cost of living: in 1948, all items, 99; 1949, 100; 1950, 100; 1951, 111; 1952, 122. Before this discussion closes perhaps we may be informed as to how that 20 points increase occurred since the change of government.

Did a single candidate seeking election as a member of the Fianna Fáil Party or a single canvasser for a Fianna Fáil candidate or a single Independent now supporting the Government indicate to one voter that it was the intention, if returned to power, to abolish food subsidies? Even before these subsidies were abolished there was an increase in the cost of living. Yet, to-day we hear from many members on the Government side that circumstances outside this country are responsible for any increase in the cost of living. That is a big change from the attitude of Fianna Fáil when they were in opposition. At that time a single point increase in the cost of living was attributed purely and simply to the inter-Party Government.

During the three and a half years that the inter-Party Government were in office there was an increase in the cost of living of less than two points but since the accession of the Fianna Fáil Government to office there has been an increase of 20 points in the cost of living figure. That indicates that the Deputies who were then in opposition were not sincere in the arguments which they put forward. Far from having a deliberate policy which would ensure a reduction in the cost of living, by neglect and by deliberate action in reducing food subsidies, they have allowed the cost of living to increase to the extent that was so clearly and certainly resented when a working class constituency was given an opportunity of voicing its opinion.

Deputy Bartley claims that it will take some time yet for the cold blast which has struck North-West Dublin to reach some of the rural constituencies. I represent a rural constituency and I can say that the temperature has risen slightly following the result in North-West Dublin, that there is a feeling of hope and confidence that the people in the rural areas will be given an opportunity shortly of remedying the wrong which a few Independent members did when they elected this Government. They will give an answer to a Government which has allowed the cost of living to get out of bounds, which has allowed unemployment to reach unprecedented levels and which has brought about conditions inimical to business and every phase of our national life.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Lynch, speaking on the Supplies and Services Bill on 29th November, 1950 — column 1341 — said, in reference to the Government's claim that in October, 1948, real earnings had at last come hip to hip with the cost of living: —

"If that is the case, the cost of living has since then easily outstripped real earnings."

That gave some concern to the Minister for Finance in his Budget statement this year. He brought in measures to see that it would not obtain much longer. Now we have a very different approach from the Government side in relation to problems such as the cost of living and emigration. It is to be noted, and it has already been stressed, that unemployment figures stand to-day 10,500 higher than when the inter-Party Government was in office.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.

Mr. Dillon

Before Questions commence might I inquire if you would consider the propriety of causing the bells to be rung, some moments before 3 p.m., on days when we sit from 10.30 a.m. to 10.30 p.m. and take Questions at 3 p.m., as it is very easy, if engaged in clerical work of any kind in an office or elsewhere, to allow the hour to pass without realising it?

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not know that there has been any direction to ring the bells except when there is not a quorum or when there is a division. The Deputy might raise the point with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

Mr. Dillon

Very well.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 27 Nov 1952