When I spoke on Thursday evening last I indicated that the Labour Party were agreeable to support this Bill. I also said that I felt the Labour Party would support any move made by the Minister for a scheme of permanent legislation to provide for price control and the various other controls that are now being authorised by the continuation of this Bill I indicated that the mere fact that five Departments depended on this Bill to a varying degree for many of their powers of control and initiative showed quite clearly the need for that permanent legislation. The fact that practically ten years after the introduction of the principal Bill it had to be continued, indicated to us in the Labour Party there was need and likely to be need for a long time to come for some scheme of permanent legislation where the controls and powers given by this Bill could be given to the various Departments.
In the Department of Industry and Commerce the main powers conferred by this Bill are the powers of controlling the cost of living and the various factors that contribute to that—things like import restrictions and increases of exports. I went on to speak on Thursday evening last of the Prices Advisory Body and while I did indicate that in principle the Labour Party supported the idea of a Prices Advisory Body, we felt—and I in particular felt—that a wrong attitude to their position and to their function appeared to have developed in the minds of the people constituting that body. As I said then, their actions are a reflection of their outlook. They appear to think their function is to advise the Minister for Industry and Commerce on price increase applications that are referred to them by certain parties. I feel that is a wrong outlook. The Prices Advisory Body should, to my mind, be a body constituted to examine the prices of commodities, particularly the prices of essential commodities. Their function should be to act as watch-dogs of the public. They should stand between the consumer and the manufacturer or retailer who would seek to exploit the present position to make increased profits and to charge extra for their commodities. I am afraid there are such people who work on the basis of supply and demand alone.
I say that the function of the Prices Advisory Body should be to examine prices with a view to seeing that in all cases the minimum amount is being charged—that they should, as I have already suggested, act as watch-dogs for the consuming public. The body's main concern should be to see that the minimum amount of money is charged for essential commodities—not for luxuries, but for commodities that are in everyday use in the lives of the ordinary people. I am afraid that the wrong outlook has crept into this body and that as a result there has been a lot of discontent in the minds of the public.
There is another factor that to my mind lets the Prices Advisory Body into a certain amount of disfavour in the eyes of the public, and that is the fact that the manufacturers' organisations are allowed to employ highly skilled technicians such as counsel and officials to help put their cases before the body in a highly technical form. Some of these people are experts, being paid by the bodies applying to have prices of certain commodities increased. Such methods are not at the disposal of such voluntary organisations as the Irish Housewives Association or the Lower Prices Council or of the Trades Union Congress or Congress of Irish Unions. While I want to pay a special tribute to the magnificent work done by the Irish Housewives' Association and the Lower Prices Council, with the help of the two congresses, I still feel it only right to say that they are at a disadvantage due to the fact that they are unable to proffer equally expert opinion as the manufacturers' organisations. Consequently there is the danger that a completely wrong picture may go before the people constituting the Prices Advisory Body. According to the public reading of the reports of the body's sittings, it does not appear that the consumers' representatives appeared to have been able to put their cases or to be able to ask their questions as well as did the representatives of those organisations seeking increases.
I feel that this position should not be allowed to continue. I think that as the Government has gone to the expense of setting up the Prices Advisory Body they should go a little step further. They should try to provide for the organisations that are seeking to keep down prices some assistance such as a team of experts— chartered accountants maybe, or a law adviser if necessary. These people would be in a position to examine all the evidence submitted by the opposing organisation and would be able to help the consumers' representatives in presenting their case to the body. Such a team of experts would ensure that the truth and only the truth of an application would be made available to the body.
Another aspect of the matter that comes to my mind is the difficulty of the consumers' organisations in getting a copy of the proposed evidence by the organisations seeking increases in prices. Copies of such evidence are available only on the day of the application so that the consumers' organisations are unable to sift the evidence properly and form a basis for the framing of proper questions. My point is that such evidence should be made available several weeks before being offered to the Prices Advisory Body in order that the bodies representing the consuming public might be given a chance to present their case. If such were allowed to happen it might be possible to have certain prices stabilised if not reduced. Just as the Fair Trade Commission have a staff of experts and are permitted to take evidence on oath and if necessary to subpoena people from different organisations, I believe the Prices Advisory Body, a much more important body, should also have such a staff appointed by the Minister.
It is quite true he does not have to accept their recommendation, but he will be a very strong Minister who will stand up to the pressure of an application from either manufacturers or retailers, with the support of the Prices Advisory Body behind it, and simply say: "I am not prepared to grant this increase." I think there should be some system whereby a thorough investigation would take place, such as the investigation which is carried out when a tariff review is sought. All the facts should be investigated. I am not at all happy that some of the increases recommended were justified. In many cases I do not think there was justification even for the level at which the prices stood when the application was made. I think a full investigation of all factors in relation to prices is absolutely necessary.
I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that under a regulation made by him it is compulsory on all shops to have publicly displayed on their premises notices indicating the controlled prices of various commodities; that notice must be displayed in such manner as to be clearly visible from outside the shop so that a prospective customer is not even compelled to go inside to find out if a particular establishment is trading lawfully. During the last session I had occasion to table a question asking the Minister if he would take steps to ensure that the Gardaí would have power to enforce that particular Order. He stated in reply that he had that power, and he would use it if necessary. I suggest to the Minister that now is the time to use it. Certainly in my constituency these notices are conspicuous by their absence.
Despite anything I might say about the Gardaí in connection with other matters, I can pay them this tribute: if a job is given to them, together with clear indications as to what that job constitutes by the responsible authorities, the Gardaí will do their work. The regulation is being ignored at the moment to the detriment of the ordinary working people and the man who refuses to obey is more than likely to be the man who is over-charging. If the Gardaí were empowered to take steps the people who are exploiting the public would soon be brought to a proper sense of their responsibilities and they would have warning that a watchful eye was being kept upon them.
All of us know that here and elsewhere combines, rings and sectional groups are attempting by one means or another to stop any steps taken to sell commodities at less than a particular price. Read the daily and weekly newspapers: even the conservative English newspapers and the conservative Irish newspapers have shown strongly within the past two weeks, and indeed no later than yesterday, that they take serious objection to international combines and groups of manufacturers clubbing together in such manner as to compel their products to be sold at the same price when it is quite clear that, if they were not in a combine, the products could be sold more cheaply. Reference was made recently in an English newspaper to valves for television. We all know the story of the International Labour Office report where the oil companies used pressure to ensure that not even the report would be permitted publication in the International Labour Office papers. It is quite clear that combine is deliberately keeping up the price of petrol and oils. All sorts of excuses are made, such as communism and so forth.
I suggest the actions of these outside bodies are very strongly reflected here at home. They are certainly reflected to an extent which is having a very appreciable effect on the cost of living. To me the cost of living does not merely connote the bare essentials of life. It does not even connote to me the things which are included in the index because the cost of living to a worker may be reflected quite extensively in the price of razor blades and other small items of that kind which, while of themselves perhaps insignificant, represent a goodly cut into the worker's wages when the sum total is arrived at. Because of these things, sometimes at the end of the week the worker is unable to provide essential foodstuffs for himself and his family.
It has been suggested that this can be counteracted by a wage increase. That is quite true. Those of us in the trade union movement are very conscious of the power we have to adjust that position by making a further demand. In fact, it has been suggested that such a demand is practically under way. Even if the working classes and their dependents secure relief by way of further wage increases, what will be the position of those in the fixed income groups, those who are dependent on a certain fixed sum out of investments, those who are dependent—and these are possibly the most miserable of all—on the social welfare benefits provided by this State? Any further wage increases will be reflected in an increased charge for various commodities. That should not be so, but it is one of those capitalistic claims that when wages go up prices must go up also. We know from experience that wages never go up until six or 12 months after prices go up because a claim cannot be brought before the Labour Court unless there is proof, either through the index figure or in some other way, that the cost of living has increased. The cost of living has to go up, therefore, before a wages claim can be made. Even if we avail of the increase in the cost of living and secure a wage increase we simply provide a further pretext for yet another increase in the cost of living. A wage increase, while desirable and necessary, will have the effect of worsening the position of those in the fixed income group and those who have the misfortune to depend on our social services.
It is the Minister's duty to take the position very seriously. I do not agree we are in a much better position than heretofore. We have heard a good deal from the Opposition Benches about the promises made by Labour and what Labour has done. I, as a Labour Deputy who supported and continues to support this Government, am not afraid to face up to the promises the Labour Party made prior to the election. I know exactly the promises that were made. I was the instrument of the Party here in relation to certain essential promises. I remember quite well what was said: We would not take part in any Government, and neither would we support a Government, which would not undertake to bring down the prices of essential commodities to the level of the 1952 Budget. We will not fall down on that promise. That promise was firmly made. We have indicated that should subsidies be required they would be made available. We are of that opinion still. Rome was not built in a day and we do not expect this, or any other Government, to do all that was promised, within eight months. Labour Party influence in this Government has shown results. Now I do not want to differentiate between Fine Gael, Labour, Clann na Talmhan or Clann na Poblachta in this Government: we are all equally guilty or we must all get the credit for whatever action this Government takes. We are part of it and we are making no apology for that. We form part of this Government and we take the credit, whether it goes up or down. We stand by that, but thanks be to God, in case I am giving false hopes, I see no reason why this Government should not run its full lifetime.
The Labour Party is not ashamed of its promises. Within two months the Government brought down the price of butter by 5d. per lb. and this meant a lot to the ordinary worker and his family. If Fianna Fáil had been in power it would have meant butter at 4/1 per lb. As I stated in my previous speeches, it is some indication of the practical realisation of some of the Parties' promises.
So much has been said on this tea commodity that it is scarcely necessary for me to go any further. It is sufficient to say that the Labour Party was instrumental in putting as much pressure as possible on the whole Cabinet and to say to them: "We feel it is essential that the public should not receive the full impact of an increase in the price of tea which may be necessary as the result of world prices." The Government decided that they would postpone doing anything on that question until September. It looks like—and I hope it is true—that that policy is going to pay dividends. At least the outlook is much better now than it was three or four weeks ago. I hope when September comes there will be no need for a further increase in the price of tea— in fact, I hope there will be a gradual reduction—because tea is an essential commodity for the ordinary working man. If we were not in charge of the Government of this country this commodity would be at least 1/8 more than it is. Certainly, even if we only succeeded in carrying it over until September we will have gained for the working people at least that much of a concession, compared to what they would have got.
We still think that bread and sugar are too dear, and that the wages of the ordinary worker do little to permit him to enjoy as much as he should of these commodities. It is also clear to anyone who has had an opportunity of examining the position, that there are factors outside the control of this Government which precluded any change up to the present moment. Certainly the wheat price was guaranteed for last year, and that wheat has to be bought at that price. The disastrous harvest affected not only the quantity but the quality of the beet grown. In fact, I think it is true to say that were it not for the refining of the imported sugar, the price of home-produced sugar would have to be increased, or at least a substantial loss shown.
As I say, we are the Government, not for these eight months, but we hope for a further four years. We will have an opportunity during that time of proving our sincerity. One most interesting point to me, at any rate, was a newspaper report which stated that Deputy Lemass taunted the Fine Gael members of the Government for yielding to the irresponsible demands of the Labour Party by not increasing the price of tea. If that is an irresponsible action—increasing the essential commodities of the working people— then I am very glad to be considered irresponsible, or half mental. If Fianna Fáil had any influence on this Government, then they would have told it: "Shove it on to the ordinary man and make him pay." Thank God wiser counsels prevailed. Thank God the outlook is such that we hope in September to be able to confound the Fianna Fáil Party on that matter.
I would like to say a few words on unemployment. It is very little satisfaction to me as a Labour man to hear An Tánaiste say that there were 7,000 more men employed this year compared to this time 12 months. I am glad that there are 7,000 less unemployed, but as a measure of protest, with practically 80,000 unemployed, I suggest to the Minister and to the Government that there is very little use for complacency or clapping one another on the back. That is a serious position which must not be allowed to continue. No Government, be it inter-Party, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour, which has tied on to it 80,000 unemployed men and women, boys and girls, with their dependents, has any cause for self-congratulation. We in the Labour Party hope that before this time 12 months a considerable improvement will have taken place.
As I said, we entered this Government and we accept responsibility, but we must have our say. I would say to the Minister for Local Government when he went round the various local authorities interviewing them and asking for their views on the County Management Act, that he could well have inquired what need there was for housing, and how many unemployed men there were in the area. Surely, with materials, craftsmen and labourers unemployed, and with a demand for houses in my constituency, what was the reason for their having to go on the dole or cross to Britain? I would have thought more of it had the Minister not sought the views of either the chairman or the views of the local authorities on the County Management Bill, but had done what T.G. Murphy did, to consult with the local authorities and ask them how he could help further.
If we are in the Government we must take the responsibility for what is happening. Until the unemployment problem is tackled earnestly and properly I feel we cannot rest. To my mind it is not such a problem as it appears. At least 25 per cent. of the 80,000 unemployed on the live register are unemployable. They should be transferred to the national health side, or some other side. No man, after he reaches the age of 65, or at least the average man, is employable under present-day conditions. He should be put as a dependent on the welfare side instead of being an applicant for work. Under the present system of legislation he must appear to seek work even though he would not be able to undertake it if he got it. If the register was cleared out, if we got a practical knowledge of who was actually seeking work, then I suggest we would be able to examine the problem in a better way.
A figure of 50,000 is the highest this country, at any one time, can have unemployed. It is a seasonal problem for a period of about four months in each year. The Government in their wisdom should have a national plan prepared which could be put into operation in the various counties where seasonal unemployment developed. That would provide employment during those four months and would result in continuous employment for all our people. Schemes should be prepared on a national scale for the relief of flooding, drainage of all sorts, and other projects. They should be documented and held in readiness for a seasonal unemployment emergency.
I speak as one who has a knowledge of this problem. In the trade union movement we keep statistics as to how our members are employed and the periods for which they are unemployed. A close examination of these figures would indicate that a figure of four months per year is the average period of unemployment for employable workers. The inclusion on the live register of persons who are unemployable either through physical disability or age completely distorts the picture.
I have said all I wanted to say on this Bill. I would appeal to the Minister to use his position. He is undertaking a difficult task in trying to keep down the cost of living in present conditions. He is undertaking a difficult task in trying to provide employment in present conditions. He is trying to perform the difficult task of making a capitalist system work with socialist methods. To my mind the day of capitalism is finished. Whatever relief was obtained through the competitive market has been choked up by the combines, by the international and national groups which refuse to compete with one another. Therefore, prices do not reach the low level that would be expected in conditions of free competition. Capitalism is on its way out. The Minister must work within the system as he finds it. He has a difficult task and I would say to him that those of us in the Labour Party who are supporting this Bill, who are willing to take the responsibility with this Government, are demanding that everything and anything necessary will be done within the next four years to ensure that the ordinary human beings get a living in this country for themselves and their dependents.