I am pleased to speak for this side of the House to this motion relating to price issues. We might revert to the motion to realise the degree to which we are speaking at a tangent and to see how irreconcilable are sections of the motion which reads:
That Dáil Éireann condemns the failure of the Government to honour its promises in regard to control of prices; notes with concern the apparent intention to enforce even less strict price control; and calls for the implementation of the various available forms of assistance to industry which will help firms in difficulties without resorting to further price increases.
The motion begs the question as to what Deputy O'Malley and Fianna Fáil suggest should be done in regard to this issue. Last evening the Minister spoke of negativism at the weekend and sought a positive response. I think we got that positive response in Deputy O'Malley's speech last night. Reverting to our debate on industry and Commerce in December last, a number of speakers from this side referred to the Fianna Fáil attitudes in regard to prices. We recognise that prices are probably an area of fair game so far as the Opposition are concerned. During that debate the Minister for Foreign Affairs said that at no stage was there any suggestion either of what precisely should be done or of what we were not doing. We would seem to have the answer from last night's debate because Fianna Fáil, through their spokesman, are apparently articulating a new policy, a clear break from past traditions, in advocating the subsidisation of food. It is clear that this was the kernel of and, apparently, the solution to the problem. However, if we consider this issue of subsidisation we could develop a philosophical argument about the Opposition and their attitudes in the past to issues such as this. I should have thought that within this country they were the ultimate example of laissez faire. The Minister, being pragmatic, quoted an example— butter—in which he said that if the price of butter were to be reduced by only 15p per lb., the cost to the Exchequer would be £12 million. This would be only one small aspect of the issue we are dealing with. If the Opposition are being serious about subsidisation presumably they are talking of subsidisation at an infinitely higher level and this, in turn, begs a further question which the Opposition should have a responsibility to answer. It is that if we are talking about subsidising food as a means of reducing the cost of living and if we are talking in terms of from £50 million to £100 million, in what other area is this money to be found in a way which would not, in turn, affect the cost of living? There is a great deal of nonsense in this area.
Because Deputy O'Malley was placed in the position of having to talk about food subsidisation, the motion is foolish. Apparently, as the remedy for the prices situation, the latter part of the motion calls for the implementation of the various alternative forms of assistance to industry so as to help firms in difficulty without their having to resort to further price increases. This is a lot of nonsense. There is a wide range of assistance to industry. That range of assistance exists through State policies, through the auspices of the IDA, through the CCT, through the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, through the Industrial Credit Corporation, through Fóir Teoranta if there is a rescue problem where a company is in a critical state. Any question of implementing these forms of assistance does not apply to Government implementation but to implementation by the firms who are being encouraged and exhorted every day of the week by the Minister to implement them. It is farcical to suggest that the implementation of this assistance is relevant to the Government if the Government are selling the idea to people that they should avail themselves of the assistance which is available in the morning if they apply for it.
It is ambiguous and quite far-fetched to suggest that such implementation, whether it be by private industry or by semi-State bodies, or by Government Departments, will help firms in difficulty without resorting to further price increases. That is the inference in the motion. There is no corollary that if greater effectiveness takes place, that if greater productivity takes place, this will result in further price increases. This also is a lot of nonsense.
In the National Prices Commission's Monthly Report for November, 1974, they refer to this issue. They state:
Given the size of the increases in money incomes that have occurred in recent years, and the increases that will occur during 1974, it is only very rarely that they can be met from profits or significantly offset by improvements in productivity and efficiency. If all applications based on increased wages and salaries were rejected, the result would again be redundancies and bankruptcies.
They also state:
If the Commission rejected all applications for price increases while the external and domestic causes of inflation continued to operate, the consequences could be predicted with confidence. If firms were not allowed to recoup the increased costs of imported materials from higher prices, redundancies and bankruptcies would follow within a relatively short period.
This is the reality of the price issue. In setting out so many irreconcilables, the motion is obviously mischievous and intent on gaining publicity rather than contributing to national debate in this area.
There is a reference in the motion noting with concern the apparent intention to enforce even less strict price control. This merely refers to a side remark made by the Minister in his speech in the Estimate when he spoke of the liquidity position, when he spoke of the difficulties many companies are getting into, when he spoke of the necessity for profits, and of the certain circumstances in which very strict price controls might be against the national interest. If Deputy O'Malley notes with concern an intention to enforce less strict price controls, this does not relate to the reality of business and commerce and the necessity for price increases based on increased costs which arise and for many other reasons.
Reference was made to the position in the textile and shoe industries. We are being treated a little unfairly in this regard. The Minister referred to it yesterday evening. There are other points which should be borne in mind. I know the Minister has had discussions with the Commission. The first result of his negotiations has been a visitor to this country to investigate the position. I know the Minister is extremely concerned about the position in the textile and shoe industries.
It is necessary to put certain matters into perspective. When we entered the EEC we were extremely fortunate in being able to retain certain incentives for industrial development which were not conceded to any other country in the EEC. Up to now we were not saying these things too loudly because it might have been damaging to the national interest if we tended to gloat about them. In the present climate, it is necessary to say these things. We have been allowed to retain the concession of complete relief from taxation on export sales in the manufacturing industry. We have been allowed to retain the option to give substantial cash grants in the area of capital investment in manufacturing industries coming in here. We have been allowed to arrange that this applies to sales within the Community, apart altogether from sales in North America, Japan, the Middle East, the Near East and Scandinavia. This was a tremendous concession and achievement.