Those of us who are responsible for keeping homes and who have experience of meeting the public know the November figure showed an increase of something in the region of a little over 2½ per cent in the cost of living. As far as we can see—again, we have no evidence until we get the figure—all commodities seem to have increased in price. What really concerns the Labour Party is the fact that there does not seem to be even a half-hearted attempt by the Ministers responsible to control prices, to exercise some form of control. Exhortations are useless. The exhortation by the Minister for Industry and Commerce recently—I think it was yesterday—is absolutely useless. The people to whom he makes these exhortations are only laughing at him.
The Taoiseach also talked on 9th March, the day before yesterday, about price increases. He said price increases are likely but increases in all commodities are not inevitable, and he then exhorted people to do this, that, and the other. He lectures the trade union movement as to what they should do to keep down prices. He advises manufacturers as to what they should do: they should be able in many cases to absorb certain increases.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce has been questioned several times in this House since the introduction of the turnover tax. His efforts have been extremely weak in the matter of price control. His stock answer recently has been that the Fair Trade Commission have been looking after prices, but he goes on to qualify that by saying that the Fair Trade Commission are concerned only with price increases arising out of restrictive trade practices. Price increases arising out of restrictive trade practices can be pretty extensive, but the type of price increases we are talking about are increases that could not be pinned down by any court of law and labelled as restrictive trade practices.
The plain fact is that when one has regard to the turnover tax, when one has regard to the increase in wages given to many thousands of workers, one cannot see where certain price increases are justified, but the Minister glibly says that the Fair Trade Commission are watching this and that his Department are keeping an eye on the situation, that certain increases have been brought to their notice, that they are satisfied that they are not abnormal, and they are satisfied that there is justification for them. I do not know what extra staff the Minister has got into the Department of Industry and Commerce, but this is an abnormal period as far as prices are concerned. In my time in political life, I do not believe there was ever such a crisis in relation to prices as there is at the present time.
I agree with the Minister for Industry and Commerce when he reminds us of the purpose for which the Fair Trade Commission was set up and stresses that the Commission is not sufficient to meet the present situation. I think all of us will admit, although we fought strenuously against it, that, because the turnover tax was introduced, price increases to a degree were justified, because nobody expects those who are selling goods to reduce their standard of living by reducing prices to their own detriment. All of us admit also that price increases are justified by reason of the fact that an increase in wages was negotiated. What annoys me, what annoyed me yesterday particularly, was a statement by the Minister for Transport and Power, on behalf of the Minister for Industry and Commerce; the Minister for Industry and Commerce was asked if he would give an account of fluctuations in prices from 1st November to date in the specific commodities generally considered in compiling the Consumer Price Index and whether any other outstanding price fluctuations in other commodities have come to his notice. In the second half of his reply, the Minister said:
I do not quite know what the Deputy means by outstanding price fluctuations.
I do not know where the Minister is living if he does not know of any outstanding price fluctuations. He goes on to say:
I am aware of increases, consequential on increases in production costs, in the prices of bread, turf briquettes, milk and cement and it was announced yesterday that the price of sugar has been increased by the Sugar Company.
There is no mention, so far, of the turnover tax. We all know that the increase in the price of practically every single commodity was set off by the introduction of the turnover tax. As a matter of fact, the ninth round of wage increases was sparked off by the introduction of the turnover tax. The Government appear to be evading their responsibility in the matter of increases in prices and it is a bit "off" for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to blame the ninth round for the increases that have occurred over the past five or six months. The basis of the agreement negotiated by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions was compensation for increased production since the eighth round of wage increases was negotiated plus compensation for an increase in the cost of living that occurred from the time of the eighth round of wage increases.
We have pressed the Minister for Industry and Commerce to employ the machinery which he himself embodied in the Act of Parliament for which he is responsible to this House, the Prices Act of 1958. Did he ever believe he would have to use that machinery? Surely when he introduced that Act, he foresaw some situation wherein the Prices Advisory Body would be called upon to function. The time has long gone when the machinery which he created in that Act should have been used. He said himself, and we all agree, that under its terms, the Fair Trade Commission is inadequate in this situation and there is no other legal machinery by which prices can be effectively controlled except the body for which the Minister for Industry and Commerce was responsible, the Prices Advisory Body. He said on one occasion he hoped he would be able to pigeonhole this Prices Act and only take it down when it was necessary. He must agree that in present circumstances it is necessary.
The Minister for Transport and Power, replying today for the Minister for Industry and Commerce, told Deputy McQuillan that there had been no notification by wholesalers to retailers of increases. I suggest that if the Minister for Industry and Commerce does not know, he is not doing his job properly. It is well known in every part of Ireland that every retailer has been sent a circular notifying him of increases in a great variety of commodities. In the short time allowed to him in a supplementary question today, Deputy McQuillan tried to list some of the commodities. I have here three lists of commodities that have been notified to retailers as carrying increased prices. Maybe they are justified. The Minister for Industry and Commerce does not care whether they are or not because if he did, he would take pains to have them investigated. Here is a great variety of goods, mainly tinned foodstuffs but including other things, in respect of which increases have been notified. I do not know whether or not there is justification for these increases. To the public, the turnover tax will be blamed or the wage increases will be blamed, but the public are not in a position to know what element of turnover tax or what element of wage increases is contained in these increases in prices. They are entitled to know.
In the ninth round and in every round of wage increases and on every occasion when they sought an increase in their wages, the workers had to prove their case. They have to prove a case for increases in income in order to sustain themselves or in order to maintain a certain standard of living. Over the past 14 or 15 years, they have had to go to the Labour Court or to go to open court to prove the necessity for an increase in their wages. They subjected their case to the criticisms and refutations of the other side, the employers' associations. They also subjected their case, in the main, to the decision given by the Labour Court and in the vast majority of cases, they accepted the award of the Labour Court, which is leaving it to a public tribunal, to three judges, to decide what wages should be fixed for them.
It is probably a cumbersome and intricate operation to examine prices of commodities because they run into tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands but I believe the establishment of a prices advisory tribunal in respect of certain essential commodities is imperative. If I were a supporter of the Government, I would advocate that they do that in order to allay public disquiet because it seems to the public that nobody cares whether or not these increases are justified.
The trade union movement have made an agreement with the employers which is to obtain for a period of a little over two years. Everybody applauds the general idea of there being a national wage agreement. That is not to say that we agree with the general wage structure, especially in respect of lowly-paid workers. However, most people would go along with the idea of a national agreement on wage increases in order to try to ensure stability of prices and manufacturing costs, so that there will be an incentive for increased production. The workers appear to be determined to do their job and the evidence as far as production is concerned is that they have pulled their weight.
It is not unreasonable for the trade union movement to expect the Government and, in particular, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to do their job in trying to provide stability of prices. I do not want to provoke or anticipate action; neither have I discussed this matter with the officials of any trade union, but it seems to me that this 12 per cent increase that has been negotiated could be swallowed up very quickly and unless there is some quietening down of prices, unless there is evidence of more serious and stronger action by the Government.
The Government have a very big responsibility in this, in that they introduced the turnover tax. I do not intend to debate now the merits or demerits of the turnover tax but that increase was responsible for an increase in the cost of living much more than the 2½ per cent. There were some Ministers in the Government who in April or May last thought foolishly that there would be no increase at all. But even before the ninth round wage increase was negotiated, prices of many commodities went up by much more than 2½ per cent.
The Government were warned at the time what the situation would be. They were warned and the country knew that there would be at that stage a ninth round of wage increases and some manufacturers and some retailers put up their prices in anticipation of the ninth round and now some of them are coming along again trying to compensate themselves for the second time for an increase in wages. That is a situation that needs to be looked at because everybody wants to see stability in prices, and, I am sure, the Government as much as anybody else.
Talking of this 12 per cent wage increase, the Government seem to have successfully used it in two different ways to their own advantage. The national agreement negotiated by the trade union movement whereby a general increase of 12 per cent was granted was represented, particularly in the by-elections in Cork and Kildare, as being something for which the Government were responsible. I must confess that I and my colleagues in my Party tried to disabuse the minds of the people of that idea. The allegation by some of the brasher members of the Fianna Fáil Party was that the Government had made it possible for workers to get a 12 per cent increase. The inference by more responsible members of the Party was to the same effect.
That, I suggest, did get them a certain amount of extra support in these two constituencies. Of course, if the facts were well known to all the people, they were to the effect that if the Government had their way or if the Taoiseach had his way, the national wage agreement would have provided for an eight per cent increase because he is on record in this House as having said that if any more than seven or eight per cent were given by way of wage or salary increase, the economy could not stand it. Despite what he said on that occasion, the trade union movement, with the employers, came to an agreement for 12 per cent. He trimmed his sails then and, on another occasion, before or after the election—it does not make any difference—he said: "Well, a bit of a bonus for the workers may be a good thing as well".
There we have the two voices. On 12th December last year, it would have been fatal to give any more than eight per cent but now that the 12 per cent was negotiated independently of the Taoiseach, he says: "Well, it is not a bad thing that they got the other four per cent". Who can believe, then, the viewpoint of the economists, which was, that more than eight per cent would ruin the economy, now that we have a situation where another four per cent has been given, and we have not heard a squeak from the economists or from the Taoiseach about the effect on the economy?
Before the election, they tried to claim credit for the 12 per cent. After the election, they are blaming the 12 per cent for the increase in prices. But, as I have said, the 12 per cent was to compensate the workers for the increase in production since the eighth round of wage increases and to compensate them for the increase in the cost of living in that period also.
I want to mention one other thing, that is, the question of employment. Granted, we seem to have more factories, more industrial activity, more persons employed in industry than we had last year, the year before or the year before that, but I do not think anybody should try to give the impression that our employment figures are better than they are. I do not think anybody should try to give the impression that nearly all our needs are satisfied as far as employment is concerned. There is the fact that we have 60,000 unemployed. We had the same figure two years ago. We had, I think, 67,000 unemployed this time last year but I accept that there were special circumstances, due to the bad weather at that particular time.
As far as unemployment is concerned, we do not seem to have made a great impression on the figures. There has not been any spectacular reduction and, as far as employment is concerned, I do not think that we can be too complacent. As far as I can gather from the statistics available to me, some of which were quoted in one of the daily papers today—I think it was the Irish Times—and these were from the official census figures—the total number of persons employed in this country in 1951 was 1,217,108. The total number employed in 1961 was 1,052,539. At the end of that period of ten years, there were 164,569 fewer employed.