As far as the public are concerned, they are sick and tired of politics in this country and I do not blame them. We had it from 1948 to 1951 that that Government had to clean up the mess that was there prior to their coming into office, a mess made by their predecessors. Between 1951 and 1954, the next Government that came in had to clear up, in their words, the mess that had been created by their predecessors. Now this Government that is in office cannot carry out their promises, so the first thing they must do before they can reduce the cost of living and lower taxation is to clear up the mess made by their predecessors. How many years is that going to take? How many years will that take? In other words, each Government have stated publicly that they would have to have time to clear the mess made by their predecessors. The fact is that this country is in one hell of a mess to-day, after all the promises.
I realise that in this particular debate I am confined to Supplies and Services and that I should deal with the cost of living alone. There are many matters, in connection with the promises made by the present Government, that I should like to refer to now but I shall have an opportunity at a later stage to-night of dealing with them. I should like to give credit where credit is due. Recently, it became necessary to increase the price of tea. There has been much criticism of the fact that the Government have stabilised the position. I agree that the Government were perfectly right to cushion the public against that increase if there is any hope that, by next September or October, the price of tea will come down again. In my view, the sections of the community that would be hardest hit by the increase in the price of tea would be the very poorer sections who can ill afford to withstand the cost of living as it is. Therefore, what has been done was done in the hope that it will at least ease the burden somewhat on these sections of the community. However, I have this criticism to offer in connection with that device, as I will describe it.
I should like the Minister to tell me what amount of money the Irish people will have to pay by way of interest on the extra £1,250,000 that the tea will cost. What interest will be paid to the commercial banks for that privilege? Is it not a fact that, at the minimum, it will cost £60,000 by way of interest to save the tea drinkers the increased cost and are we not paying that £60,000 interest to commercial concerns? Ultimately will that not mean increased taxation instead of a reduction in taxation? Surely, that is not helping to keep down the cost of living, ultimately?
If we borrow money from commercial banks at an exorbitant rate of interest for consumer purposes we are doing serious harm to the economy of this country—and it is here that I make a suggestion to the Minister for Industry and Commerce that he should use all his persuasion within the Government, and that his Party should do the same, to ensure that, in the interests of the public, the control of credit is brought into the hands of the State. If the State has power over credit, and if it can control the rate of interest for an object such as the keeping down of the price of tea, then nobody can criticise an action such as that taken by the Government and say that it is wrong. Only when we borrow from the commercial banks, over whom the State has absolutely no control, is the red light seen with regard to our financial position generally. I think the machinery is available, though it may not be very effective at the moment, in many ways to keep prices down, to control different commodities. According to the various Ministers, it is not working successfully. Deputy Lemass, the former Minister for Industry and Commerce, pointed out that the control of prices was a very difficult subject to deal with. The present Minister will find it no easier. If money causes a rise in prices and if its control lies outside the hands of the Government, how can they, in turn, hope to keep down the cost of the commodity? The real control that should be in the hands of the Government is control over money. Until that control is exercised by this or some other Government then we shall be arguing—if we are still here—for many a day and many a year on how the cost of living can be kept down.
I want to deal now with the reduction that was made in the price of butter. I believe that when that reduction in the price of butter took place the Government felt they were killing two birds with the one stone: (1) they felt they were carrying out an election promise to reduce the cost of living and (2) they felt that, by the reduction, they might help to increase the consumption of butter at home so that, when our agricultural economy had improved and an expansion had taken place in the dairying industry— as we are led to believe by the Minister for Agriculture—the increased consumption of butter in Ireland would save us the expense of having to export that butter to Britain and to pay them a subsidy for taking it from us. In my view, the reduction of 5d. per lb. made very little difference to the public and, in particular, it made very little difference to the poorer sections of the community who, at most, can buy two or three lb. of butter in the week. A reduction of 5d. in the lb. did not mean that they were enabled to buy one extra lb. of butter per week. If the reduction were such that a family that normally buys three lb. of butter per week was enabled to buy an extra lb. in the week then I would agree that the reduction was worthwhile. However, from the knowledge at my disposal— and I am subject to correction on this —I do not believe the consumption of butter has gone up to any remarkable degree as a result of the lowering of the price by 5d. per lb. Our whole idea should be to get down the price of butter as low as possible and to increase home consumption. Is it not a much better proposition in the long run that the butter should be consumed here at home, and so build up our people, rather than—if we have a surplus—that our people here in Ireland cannot afford to buy it because of the price and that we have almost to beg the British or somebody else to buy it from us and, in addition, pay them a subsidy to take it? In my view, the reduction of 5d. per lb. was penny wise and pound foolish.
It may be a little too early yet to criticise severely the actions of the present Government. My criticism at the beginning of my speech to-night was that, from what I had gathered in the earlier portions of this debate, certain elements in the Government now suggest that all they had promised to do was their best. I want to remind the public that the present Government did not get into office on any such mild statement.
They got office on the specific promise to reduce the cost of living and to lower taxation. If anybody wishes to check that from last week's debate, Deputy Michael O'Higgins reaffirmed that that was one of the reasons why the Government was elected when he said, as reported at column 270 of Volume 148:—
"It is the policy of this Government to get down the cost of living."
In other words, that is the reason why they moved from one side of the House to the other and were given control. I think it would be just too bad to let Fine Gael, particularly, away with all that plámás, that all they promised to the Irish public was: "We shall do our best." So long as we get it clear in our minds that they gave specific promises through their election agents, through their leaflets, pamphlets and so forth to do a job, so far as I am personally concerned, I am prepared to give them time but I hate the idea of suggesting, or trying to put it across on us, that they did not make these promises.
In the next six months, definite financial measures will come before this House and when the Budget is being discussed we shall have a chance of seeing what their policy for the future really is, how they hope to lower taxation and to reduce the cost of living. It may be that this Government find it completely impossible to lower the cost of commodities. If they do, all we expect them to say is that they cannot do it but there are alternative suggestions that can be made. One is that if they cannot reduce prices, they can increase wages and they can help to inject more money into industrial concerns and agriculture so that employers and employees, whether they be on the land or in the factories, will have more money in order to buy commodities and the necessaries of life. They have that alternative and I hope that we shall see in the very near future that these steps are taken.
I think that the temper of the people is such that they are beginning to lose faith in institutions such as this Parliament, where we have nothing but a string of promises from one election to the other. Then it is felt that political Parties and politicians can within a few months turn round and blandly say: "Well, we promised nothing; we only promised that we would do our best." Let us hope that when the Budget comes along this Government will at least be able to do what they suggested they would have been able to do if Fianna Fáil had gone out of office prior to the introduction of the last Budget.
