Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1946 (Continuance and Amendment) Bill, 1954—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Crotty)

As the Minister is detained replying to questions in the Dáil, he has asked me to deputise for him until he is available to come to the House. This Bill proposes to continue the life of the Supplies and Services legislation until 31st March, 1956. As the House is aware, the Supplies and Services Act, 1946, has been continued in operation since 1946 by means of Continuance Acts; under the Continuance Act at present in force the life of the 1946 Act would expire at the end of the present month.

As the Minister explained when introducing the Bill in the Dáil, the necessity for a further extension of this legislation arises from the need to provide permanent legislation for a number of controls hitherto operated under the Act of 1946. Such controls as control of prices and control of exports are operated by the Department of Industry and Commerce under the Act; the Minister for Agriculture avails of the Act to operate a considerable number of controls relating to the dairying industry and the distribution and marketing of agricultural produce. These controls must be continued and pending the enactment of alternative legislation the Supplies and Services Act must be retained for this purpose.

The Minister desires me to repeat to the House the assurance which he gave to the Dáil about the Government's intention to terminate the life of the Supplies and Services Act as soon as possible. Every effort is being made and will continue to be made towards the provision of alternative legislation to enable the Act to lapse. Already, as the House is aware, three Acts have been passed by the Oireachtas which give alternative provision for the exercising of powers previously operated under the Supplies and Services Act. The Minister was referring to the Exchange Control Act, the State Guarantees Act and the Agricultural Produce (Meat) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. Another Bill, the Fertilisers Feeding Stuffs and Mineral Mixtures Bill, 1955, which will replace a number of Emergency Powers Orders was recently introduced in Dáil Éireann. Several other Bills are in the course of preparation in the various Departments which the Minister hopes will be introduced during the coming year.

As far as the Minister can judge at present it will be necessary to promote about ten new Bills to replace the Supplies and Services Act. As far as his Department is concerned it will be necessary to provide permanent legislation for (i) control of prices, (ii) control of exports and (iii) regulation of carriage of wheat and milk; the Minister for Agriculture will need six new Bills, including the Fertilisers Bill, which as I have mentioned, has already been introduced in the Dáil. This legislative programme is a formidable one. Some of the matters concerned, for example the form of legislation to be provided for permanent control of prices, will require more careful consideration by the Government and the Oireachtas. The Government are making every effort to expedite the introduction of all the alternative legislation necessary but, nevertheless, the House will appreciate that even if the new Bills are ready for introduction shortly it may not be possible for the Dáil and the Seanad to find time to deal with them within the next 12 months. It may well be, therefore, that despite our best efforts, the Government may find it necessary to propose a further extension of the Supplies and Services Act in 12 months' time.

Meanwhile, I recommend the present Bill to the Seanad for a Second Reading.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Níl aon aimhreas i dtaobh na barula atá againne i dtaobh an Bhille seo. Ní maith linn é agus táimid ar an intinn nach ceart é a bheith ós ár gcomhair, beag ná mór.

Ní dóigh liom gur féidir linn a rá ach an oiread go bhfuil muid an-tsásta leis an óráid atá déanta ag an Rúnaí Parlaiminte i dtaobh brí an Bhille. Bhí pointe amháin ann cinnte a thug roinnt sásaimh dúinn, sé sin, go bhfuil ar intinn dul ar aghaidh agus na Billí riachtannacha a thabhairt isteach chomh luath agus is féidir leo a fhágfas an sórt seo Bille i leataoibh ar fad.

The purpose of this Bill has been explained and, notwithstanding the undertakings inherent in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, I should like to say that the Bill gives us no satisfaction. We do not receive it even with mixed feelings. We think the Bill should not be brought in, good, bad or indifferent. The Bill, as Senators are aware, gives very wide powers to the Government. Anybody who has taken the trouble to look at the Principal Act and anybody who has studied Section 2 of that Act will appreciate the extent of these powers. To the student of history, Section 2 will bring home very forcibly the fact that there must have been very grave circumstances in existence at the time the original Act was brought in. It was brought in at the worst period, the most difficult period, of the emergency. Some of the powers in the Bill are of particular importance. At the moment, I think we all agree that the powers which relate to price control are the ones of outstanding interest. I have said that we dislike the Bill. Complaint has been made in this House more than once with regard to the delay in introducing the necessary legislation to make permanent whatever proposals the Government think ought to be made permanent to deal with matters covered by this temporary measure.

It is clear from discussions in the Dáil that considerable progress has been made in the preparation of that legislation and we on this side regret very much that, since the new Government came in, they did not push ahead with the proposed legislation and have it introduced and enacted by now. We here, members of this group, have never felt happy about the introduction of this temporary measure, but whatever unhappiness we experienced about it, I can say that the people who occupy the benches on the other side were particularly dissatisfied and particularly vocal in expressing their dissatisfaction with the continued introduction of this temporary measure. Somebody last evening referred to some Ministry as being deserving of the name of Ministry of Leisure and perhaps in view of the failure of the Department responsible for the introduction of this measure, the term might very aptly be applied to it.

In any case, I take this view, that the circumstances that gave rise to the introduction of this measure no longer exist. Most of the powers that it confers on the Government are no longer required. Some, I agree, must be retained and I have no doubt that, in the sphere of finance, there will be necessity for quite a time yet to entrust special powers to the Government, but outside of these powers, I think the rest might very well go. I am not at all impressed by the declaration of the Parliamentary Secretary that it would require eight or ten Bills to cover the matters involved in this measure. The Bills cannot be very lengthy Bills. We have had some Bills before us arising out of matters covered by this measure and it did not take us very long to dispose of them, but we have the satisfaction of knowing that these matters are now covered by permanent legislation. We know what that legislation is and there is no uncertainty about it.

I have mentioned that the most important matter exercising the attention of the public at present is the matter of prices and price control. The main act gives the Government very wide powers to interfere in matters of price and matters of profits. There was a good deal of complaint with regard to the results achieved by the former Minister for Industry and Commerce. Senators, however, are familiar with the change of Government that took place in 1948 and are familiar with developments in the field of prices during the régime of that Government. The present Minister for Industry and Commerce was then Tánaiste and the Deputy who acted as Minister for Industry and Commerce at the time was very interested in the problem of price control and the necessity for overhauling prices in all fields. Whatever they could do, I take it they did it. Notwithstanding their best, they failed to achieve anything in the way of a satisfactory result. On the contrary, the whole position deteriorated and deteriorated to such an extent that it eventually brought them down.

However, the point I want to come to is that the present Tánaiste and Minister was, I think, responsible for what he at the time considered to be a very revolutionary step designed to enable him to redress the whole problem of prices. I think it was the Tánaiste who was responsible for the setting up of the Prices Advisory Body. That, as Senators who were members of the House at the time will remember, was introduced with a great deal of "whoopee" a great deal of ballyhoo and a great deal of excitement, and there was a feeling engendered all over that here now was very drastic action about to be taken and that no longer would this problem of high prices trouble the ordinary man.

It was the Tánaiste of to-day who selected the personnel of the body that was to examine into this question of prices. I think he selected a very capable body of people to do the work he had in mind and I think that, if I had the selection of the gentlemen to do that work, gentlemen who, in my opinion, would do it well, I do not think I would better the selection he made. I am sure that, when he selected them, he did not select them particularly for their loyalty to or their interest in the Fianna Fáil Party. I say that not with any intention of casting any reflection on them, but I think it would be well to remember that he was responsible for the setting up of that body. I think it well to remember who is responsible for the nominating of the members of that body. It is well to remember the whole circumstances in which the body was set up. There was a change of Government in due course, and I think it is in accordance with the facts that the new Minister did not in any way interfere with the personnel of the Advisory Body. In fact, I think it is not an exaggeration to say that he did not interfere, either, in its working but that, on the contrary, any help or any co-operation he could give to that body was given.

The Tánaiste and Minister for Industry and Commerce and most of his colleagues have had experience of Government. They had, as is clear, considerable experience of the problems and the workings of the price control system — a price control system designed by themselves and, as I pointed out, manned by very eminent gentlemen in whom they had the fullest confidence. In spite of the experience of a number of the present Ministers and in spite of the fact that these people knew full well the Government could do very little in regard to this matter of price control and in regard to this whole matter of price levels, except through a system of subsidies, they set out during the last election deliberately to deceive the public as to the powers of the Government in regard to the control of prices and in regard to the adjustment of price levels. It may be thought that in that I am exaggerating to some extent.

A thing I do not as a rule like doing is digging up ghosts, but this is an occasion, I think, where it is necessary to recall the declarations of present Ministers in regard to these matters. I think it is particularly important that they be recalled now because, as I say, the gentlemen who made these statements were, on the whole, gentlemen who had experience of Government and had experience particularly of this problem of price control. I am not concerned very much at the moment with the declarations of the main element of the Coalition. I say, and I say it with considerable regret, that I have lost respect for that Party. I hope I will continue to enjoy the friendship and goodwill of its individual members, but, as a Party, as far as I am concerned, I think it must be about the poorest thing that has come into Irish life during its history.

For the Labour Party, on the other hand, I have had, and I hope still have, respect. I should have, because I am a worker myself. As many Senators will know I did not happen to be born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I know what it is to have to work very hard. I know what it is to see working-class families trying to make do on very small incomes. Looking back at it now, all I can say is that I marvel at what working-class families have been able to do, so very often on the pittance that was coming into them.

The Labour Party in particular informed its followers and the public in general that it was interested in the cost of living and that it had a way of overhauling the cost of living. I think it is not an exaggeration to say that in toto their declarations amount to undertakings, perhaps solemn undertakings, that they knew how to reduce the cost of living, and that they would reduce the cost of living. To examine their statements in detail would take a very long time. It would also take a very long time to run over the whole field of Labour men and to discuss their views on this matter. I do not intend to do that, but it is essential that we should recall a few of the more specific statements of these spokesmen of the Labour Party.

I am not quite sure as to the position of Deputy Kyne in the other House. I am not in any way going to deal at length with Deputy Kyne or his statements but I think he is a responsible spokesman for the Party. He said the Labour Party stood for reductions in the prices of bread, butter, tea and sugar. I mention this to show that these people had given consideration to this question of subsidies and the cost of living and that they had come to firm conclusions with regard to them.

Another of the Labour spokesmen, at the moment a Minister, is Deputy Keyes. He held forth in the same strain. Deputy Davin is a Parliamentary Secretary and is one who took a prominent part in the campaign for lower prices and for the introduction of subsidies. He had this to say:—

"As far as the Labour Party is concerned the principal item in our programme in this election is the reduction of taxation——"

We shall deal with that on another occasion. He goes on to say:—

"——on all essential commodities to the same level or as nearly as possible to the level at which they stood before the Budget of 1952. I pledge my word of honour...that, if I am re-elected, to undertake with my colleagues to use that power to force whatever new Government is selected to bring down these prices."

Perhaps, in accordance with the tradition of the House, I should give the reference. That is taken from the Midland Tribune of the 15th May, 1954.

Deputy Dunne is a very prominent spokesman for the Labour Party and I have no doubt he exercises considerable influence over working-class families in many places. His declaration is to this effect:—

"Before Labour would participate in a Government with any Party or group of Parties, they would insist that the prices of bread, butter, tea, sugar, cigarettes, tobacco and the workers' pint are reduced immediately."

These, remember, are not the declarations of men new to politics. They are not the declarations of new candidates. They are the declarations of men who have had considerable political experience and who have had the help and advice of other men who have been Ministers of State and who have, I hope, devoted considerable attention to this question of the control of prices —men who must have known what difficulties were inherent in any action they might take. That quotation is from the Meath Chronicle of the 15th May, 1954.

Here is an interesting quotation from the Irish Times of the 5th April, 1954, in which the Labour programme was discussed:—

"In addition to the reduction of food prices, the Labour Party hope to reduce the price of tobacco, cigarettes, beer and spirits."

A question by another person who is now the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Corish, appears in the Wexford People of the 8th May, 1954. He asked:—

"Would they prefer butter at 4/2 a lb. under Fianna Fáil to butter at 2/10 a lb. under the inter-Party Government?"

Perhaps the Minister for Industry and Commerce will not mind if I mention one little remark of his. During the course of a speech at Naas, as reported in the Irish Press on the 15th May, 1954, he said:

"Fianna Fáil Deputies, by voting for the increased prices for tea, bread, butter, sugar and flour, and for the higher taxes on cigarettes, beer and tobacco, have been active conspirators in the attack on the people's standard of living."

Maybe I should conclude, though I feel sorry to leave off quoting these gems. Here is one by Deputy Corish, the present Minister for Social Welfare, as reported in the Irish Independent of the 30th April, 1954:

"The first point in the election programme of the Labour Party was the reduction of food prices and the use of subsidies on essential articles of food to achieve this object. Labour was very definitely committed to this."

Let me say why I mentioned that. There is no ambiguity about the views of the Labour Party with regard to their ability to bring down the cost of living.

I should like to be able to talk about meetings I have attended myself. The last election was probably the only election in a very long time in which I did not take an active part but, if I did not take an active part in it, I was an interested listener at a good many meetings. There is no doubt in my mind as to what was the intention of speakers on the present Government's platforms at that time. Their intention was to convey that they knew how prices had been raised—that they were raised because of the neglect of the previous Government to deal properly with them. They wanted to convey that they knew how to bring down prices and that, if given the opportunity, they would bring them down and bring them down quickly.

Remember, there is no use in coming in here to experienced parliamentarians and telling us that the Budget was already passed and that taxation had already been levelled. The Government could do as they jolly well liked. They could come in and they would be most welcome to come in with proposals to reduce taxation. There would be a certain difficulty for them in coming in and asking that taxation be increased but they would have been most welcome to everybody in either House if they came in with proposals for the reduction of taxation. They were not committed to any Budget—as, on another occasion, we shall be able to show that they were not committed to that Budget that imposed taxation and that eliminated certain subsidies. If they wanted to do it they could have done it any time from last July up to the present time.

I wonder whether this quotation accurately gives the view of the Minister for Industry and Commerce with regard to his powers at the present time so far as the control of prices is concerned. He was recently asked a question in the Dáil by, I think, a member of his own Party, with regard to meat prices—a very difficult matter and a very difficult one for him to deal with. I am concerned, however, with the view that was expressed in part of that reply:—

"My function in the matter is to watch the profit margin and see if there is any undue profit taking place."

His function is "to watch the profit margin." In other words, it would seem as if prices were to be controlled through the control of profits. He continued:—

"I have no power or function in the matter of fixing the price of cattle."

I expect that anything might be substituted for the word "cattle" in that quotation. If that represents the view of the Minister for Industry and Commerce then it raises a very serious issue and it poses a very serious question, that is, whether the Government have sufficient power to deal with this grave matter; whether the Prices Advisory Body, set up by the present Minister for Industry and Commerce— and which is staffed by very capable people—is a competent body and is capable of doing the work which the Minister would wish it to do. If that body is not functioning in the manner in which the Minister desires—if it is not achieving results in the direction in which he wants them achieved—then what is the Minister's next step?

I have dealt with the views of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and of his immediate followers in the Labour Party on the question of the cost of living. The next matter which we will dispose of deals very much with the same question but from a different angle. It is clear that the Labour Party pinned their faith very much on subsidies as a means of bringing down prices. I must be fair to the House and not leave the matter in such a general term. I should just like to give a few examples to show the strength of the conviction that the Labour members felt regarding the power of subsidies to do what they were promising the electorate they would and could do.

Deputy Everett is now a responsible Minister. In a declaration—according to the Enniscorthy Guardian of the 1st May, 1954—he said:—

"The Labour Party would continue to hold the position of deciding what the Government was going to be and they would only decide in favour of the Party prepared to carry out schemes Labour would suggest, such as restoring the food subsidies."

Deputy Davin was equally emphatic. This short quotation from a speech delivered by him and quoted in the Leinster Express of the 17th April, 1954, runs as follows:—

"The Labour Party would use whatever power they got from the people to make certain that the cost of essential commodities would be reduced and that if necessary subsidies would be restored for this purpose."

Deputy Corish had this to say, according to the Irish Times of the 30th April, 1954:—

"The Labour Party did not accept that people should be forced to cut down expenditure on essential foodstuffs and for that reason the very first point in the Party's election programme was the reduction of the price of foodstuffs and the use of subsidies on essential articles of food. The Party was definitely committed to that aim."

There are many other quotations, but I think that few will bring home to the Seanad the strength of feeling that existed among members of the Labour Party and among men who are now Ministers of State with regard to the power of subsidies.

Senators will see the extent, if they were sincere, to which they were determined to use subsidies for that purpose. I just want to know why they have not gone on with their policy of subsidies. It is clear that they have failed to reduce the cost of living. It is clear that they added only one subsidy to the subsidies already in existence and introduced by Fianna Fáil —and that was the subsidy on butter.

As far as I am concerned—and I can assure the House that I speak for those with whom I am associated on this side of the House—we want to bring down the cost of living. We want to bring it down and we want to increase the living standards of our people and particularly of the poorer sections and lower income groups in the community.

The question is, is the subsidy method a good one? If it is a good one, why does the Government not proceed to make more elaborate use of it? There is no point in their saying their hands were tied by the former Budget. They are not, they were not tied by the former Budget. There is no use in their saying that the money is not available to them to do this work. They have financial wizards to advise them, gentlemen who would easily show them how to take rabbits of gold out of a hat just whenever they wanted to do that. They made those promises, they gave those undertakings and I am just asking on behalf of my colleagues why they have not fulfilled their undertakings. It will not be sufficient for them to say they were tied by a former Budget. It will not be sufficient for them to say that the financial system is against them. They have the power to alter these things if they wish to do so. What are they going to do about it?

I am asked the question whether the subsidy system is a good one. That is a matter I would like to discuss at length, but it is clear that it would not be fair to the House to continue to hold it up much longer. I have spoken at greater length than I intended to speak on this matter. All I can say now is that, as far as I am concerned, that is the question to which the simple answer "yes" or "no" cannot be given. In times of emergency or of acute economic distress, subsidies may be desirable. When they were introduced by the Fianna Fáil Government during the war they were introduced in those very circumstances that were suitable for the introduction of subsidies. Even though the conditions are hard at present, however, I think the present time is not a suitable time for subsidies. The circumstances that gave rise to the introduction of the subsidy system no longer exist. My main objection to it is that it conceals—and conceals only too effectively, only too efficiently—the real economic position of this State. It conceals the real economic position from the people. That is the great objection I find to subsidies, particularly at the present time. If costs of production are high, if scarcities exist in a great many items, if economic frictions have developed and are extending, then it is far better that the people should know of their existence.

For my part, I would very much prefer that, in general, price difficulties would be met or resolved by wage adjustments following on adequate inquiry and ultimately by conference between the workers and managements. For this purpose, I cannot recommend anything better to the House than the approach to these problems through the channels or machinery of the Labour Court. Perhaps the Labour Court is slow—it must have an enormous amount of work to do—but it ought to be possible to help the Labour Court in its work. I cannot escape this feeling, that the court is not getting the support to which it is entitled. I cannot help feeling that the court is not getting the respect it ought to get. For the general body of workers, where prices are a difficulty, I cannot see any better way of resolving that difficulty than through the channels of the Labour Court. In doing that, the real difficulties confronting them, the real difficulties confronting industries and confronting the State, are brought before them. They are brought home to them, they are educated to them and in consequence of that education I think that they themselves would be able to take satisfactory action to enable a proper adjustment of prices to be made.

I have dealt with three things. I have taken the main point, this question of the cost of living. I have shown that the Labour Party in particular—I have given the reason why I selected the Labour Party for comment—entered into a commitment with the public that it would reduce the cost of living, that, in fact, it knew how to reduce the cost of living. I have shown that the Labour Party, obviously after giving considerable attention to the matter and after considerable investigation, had pinned their faith on the capacity of the subsidy system to overhaul prices and overhaul them in a satisfactory manner. I have shown—I have not attempted to demonstrate it because it is a fact that is observed by all and sundry—that prices have not come down, that the cost of living has not come down; and secondly, that the Labour Party itself has failed to introduce that system of subsidy which they declared they would introduce and which they declared would be capable of solving the difficulties of workers due to high prices.

Let me conclude by asking this question. What is likely to affect prices? If the Minister has not the power to do it, will he indicate the powers which he thinks he could take to overhaul prices and reduce costs and leave capital intact? If he thinks that the reorganisation of the Prices Authority is advisable and would achieve that result, will he indicate to us the lines on which he thinks he ought to proceed in the matter of changing that body, whether by enlarging it or overhauling it?

For my own part, I am satisfied that the Government itself can do very little with regard to this question of prices. It will, of course, be said that if the Government takes control of industry, if it socialises industry, it will be able to do what it or what the Labour people think they can do, but is there any intention to socialise industry, and in that way bring about a reduction in prices, a reduction in which we are all very interested and from which we would all benefit? My own belief, as I say, is that the Government can do very little about it. But can it be done? It is clear, anyway, that the only satisfactory way of dealing with the matter, in the interests of the workers, in the interests of the poor and in the interests of the nation as a whole is, and I mention it with a certain amount of diffidence, by getting more efficient production and higher production levels.

How is that to be done? It is not a matter that we can discuss on this Bill. I would just barely indicate what I think are the means by which this most desirable end might be achieved. The first essential is that the whole technique of management be improved. That is a tremendous task, and some efforts are being devoted to it at the present time. But when one considers the somewhat disorganised system of industry that we have, one is not so sure that quick results will be achieved in that field. However, we have got to face the facts. I think that nobody will more readily admit the need for attention to that particular aspect of the national economy than management itself in this country. I think that they themselves feel that something more, much more, will have to be done in the future than has been done so far.

There is then the whole question of the attitude of operatives to their work —to engender the feeling in them that it is in their own best interests, as well as in the interests of the nation as a whole, that output be stepped up, that waste be eliminated, whether that is waste of raw materials, waste in the matter of running machinery and plant, or waste in the matter of time. That a man should waste 30 minutes in the day does not seem to be very significant, but if a man wastes half an hour every day for a week it becomes noticeable, and if that goes on for a year it becomes remarkable. If we all waste, perhaps not very deliberately and not intentionally, even ten minutes in the day, and do that every day for a year, is it not quite easy to appreciate how that adds to the cost of production? How to get over to men and women in all branches of trade, industry and commerce the need for greater devotion to work, the need to do their work better, to secure higher outputs, to eliminate waste of all kinds, and to get that over rapidly, is something that it will be very difficult to do.

There is then the over-all necessity for better capital equipment. Much of that which we have is obsolete. Much that we have is quite effective as far as machinery and plant goes, but because of inventions and of developments in other countries it has become obsolete and so very many of our industries are unable, because of the lack of resources, to replace the capital equipment they have at the present time.

I would conclude by suggesting that higher rewards for capital itself are essential if we are to secure this higher output with a consequent reduction in costs. I will mention something that I would like to argue, but perhaps to mention it will be enough, and it is that we ought to get out of our heads as quickly as possible that high profits are inconsistent with good wages and with low prices. Experience everywhere, even in this country of ours, has demonstrated that low prices and high wages and high profits are thoroughly consistent. These, I think, are the only ways in which we can do what I am sure the Minister desires to do, and that is to overhaul this whole question of the cost of living, thereby raising generally the standard of living for the people.

I am afraid that I have held the House rather long and perhaps I have wearied it to some extent, but I think that these are occasions when things need to be said. Some of them, in the telling of them may have been unpleasant; they may have been hard but it is our duty to stare truth straight between the two eyes. Unless we do that, we will not get anywhere. Let us be straight with ourselves and straight with the public. If we are, then we shall have nothing to fear.

Mr. Burke

When I read the Minister's statement on this Bill in Dáil Éireann and his explanation of the purpose of the Bill, I thought the principal speaker for the Opposition in the Seanad would deal with it very briefly, but he decided to take us over much of the economic vista that presents itself to the Government, as viewed through Fianna Fáil spectacles. I say that the anxieties which Senator Ó Buachalla has in connection with these matters is that his Party would like, if possible, to bring these matters to a head at the moment, because he and every member of his Party knows that time is with us and that it will be necessary for us to get an opportunity of putting our programme of reconstruction into operation during the full term of office of this Government.

One of the causes of the high cost of living—and I am not making any concession on that point, because we have kept the cost of living stable during the past seven months—is high taxation and it was only during the present week that the Minister for Finance had an opportunity of telling the people that he proposes to reduce taxation for the coming year by a sum of almost £2,750,000. If we add to that amount the burden of the Supplementary Estimates the amount would be, in round figures, some £7,000,000. The effect of his prospective reductions could not have been felt during the past seven or eight months and the Fianna Fáil Government before going out of office ensured, by the bringing in of the Budget and insisting that it be passed at the time, that these seven months would be fruitless, so far as we are concerned. Then, they have the effrontery to say that we have not dealt with all the problems which they deliberately set out to stop us from dealing with.

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the staff of life. A month ago, we debated wheat prices here, and there was a similar debate in the other House, and many of those who were loudest in their protests against the reduction in the price of wheat were those supporting the Fianna Fáil Government, but they did not say that, in spite of that opposition, we reduced by 15 per cent. the price that will be paid for wheat next year. Let me remind my friends opposite that it will be next autumn before the wheat which is reduced by 15 per cent. will be available, and that it will probably be next Christmas before the Government will get any benefit whatever from that reduction. Reading the debates in the other House, and having listened to Senator Ó Buachalla here, it is clear that that significant fact has not been borne in on the Fianna Fáil speakers.

We have a policy and its results were manifest during our previous three years in office, and have been manifest in the trade returns published recently. With that increased output and export of agricultural products, we will get beyond the period of scarcity. I wonder what meat prices would be if Fianna Fáil's restrictive policy had been continued and if we had not had the benefit of Deputy James Dillon as Minister for Agriculture for a period of three years. He was the first man in this generation to increase agricultural output in any significant way, and he is continuing to do so.

The dear money policy of the previous Government has been the cause of increases in rents, rates and taxes on every individual, rich and poor, in this country. The then Minister for Finance borrowed £20,000,000 at 5 per cent. when corporations in Britain were able to borrow as much money at 4 or 4½ per cent., and, although that bad example of dear money was set by the previous Government, the present Minister was able to borrow £20,000,000 last autumn at 4½ per cent. and the loan was over-subscribed. Senator Ó Buachalla speaks about output. What restricts output in housing more than dear money? The houses are built and they are so dear that the people cannot live in them, and naturally there is a temptation to the men working on them to say to themselves: "This is drying up and we will have to leave our homes in Ireland for foreign parts" and all caused by the cost of that dear money.

The cheaper money that we were able to borrow would give us, in that line and every other line, an expanding economy. It would give us more output in relation to similar overheads and I think that the fact that Fianna Fáil do not appear to have realised that you must have more output in relation to similar overheads has been one of the greatest fallacies in their whole economic policy during their various terms of office in the past 25 years.

They speak about the difficulties of industry and of the necessity for giving industry large portions of its profits, so that it may equip itself with the most modern and up-to-date machinery, so that it may produce cheaply, effectively and efficiently, so that it may sell things cheaply, so that it may pay its workers well and may show good profits for the people who invest money in speculative enterprise; but they took much more of the life-blood of that industry in taxation than was ever taken by any Government in this country and destroyed the capacity of the business to purchase the necessary tools for getting on with the job of giving good wages and cheap prices by increased output and efficient management. I am surprised that we have had the patience to listen for so long to this false economy being preached here in season and out of season.

We said at meetings up and down the country—and I make no apology for it—that we would make an effort to reduce the cost of living. We are making an effort, and will make an effort, and cheaper money, better managed national government, better managed local government, encouraged industry, encouraged agriculture and expanding production will make all these things possible. Anyone who turns his hand here to the sort of palliatives they suggest—a little scheme here and another little scheme there—is never going to make Ireland a country in which the national increase in the population, or any proportion of it, will be able to get a decent way of life here. Everything that we want, and hope for, can be covered by an expanding economy and we cannot have that except we create the conditions and the climate that will let agriculture and its handmaiden, industry, survive and grow in our country through efficient government, good administration, cheap money and a will to work and get on with the job.

I think I have dealt briefly with, and at the same time covered, the main points made by the principal speakers so far on the other side of the House. They say we have done nothing to reduce the cost of living but we have stabilised it and have laid firm and sound foundations to bring about that reduction. They know that and they must know it.

Mr. Hawkins

The promises were that you would reduce the cost of living.

Mr. Burke

We never said we would get a wand and take from the farmer the money he got last year in order to reduce the price of bread this week. That would be a monstrous suggestion. Let me also remind the House that we have got to pay for the cost of the last Government's extravagance.

Mr. Hawkins

In what way?

Mr. Burke

The young people who are working in this country will have to bear the cost of the 5 per cent. loans floated a couple of years ago. They will pay for them through dearer houses. Corporations and county councils up and down the country will put the burden on the ratepayers in order to pay for the costs of that extravagance and incompetence. I believe that those who have deposits in this country would be prepared to lend them, provided they got security for their money and that we were able to stop inflation by stabilising the cost of living here. By doing that, we will tend to make their money more valuable. But, if we permit the cost of living to rise out of bounds, as was done by the previous administration, and even if we pay a high rate for the money, it would be ineffective because the loss on the capital sum would be greater than the increase of interest which would be given.

There is one question I would like to ask the Minister before concluding. It is related to the recent inquiry which dealt with the supply and distribution of building materials. I think that building of all sorts, private building, school building, hospitals, affect greatly the amount of money that has to be raised from the people by taxation. Every effort should be made to see that the building industry is made efficient and that it will be given materials at the right price and allowed to borrow money for building at a price that will not be too great a burden.

I think I have clearly demonstrated that, given a reasonable period in office, we will be able to ensure by an expanding economy a reduction in the cost of living which will be well within the bounds of the earnings of all the people of this country to enable them to enjoy a decent standard of life in Ireland.

Professor Fearon

It seems to me that there are two aspects to this debate. First of all, there is the fate of this famous 1946 Act which is reviewed and renewed every year. I remember when that Act was debated as a Bill and the powers which were given to the Government under the Act. The consequence was the outpouring of Orders and the establishment of a committee to deal with statutory Orders. Every year we have been told that the Act has only another year to run. We have had the same experience this year. The more I attend these debates and the more I think about it, the less sure I am that we ought to allow this Act to go so soon. It provides a most valuable opportunity of exercising parliamentary control over a large field of interrelated legislation. For that reason, I do not regret it is going to be continued for another year.

In regard to the fate of the 1946 Act, we should not be too quick to get rid of it because it gives us a lever to control legislation. It was suggested that this Act will be ultimately replaced by a series of individual enactments—eight or ten. The more I think of this matter, the more I am convinced it is going to be difficult.

What sort of permanent legislation could be introduced to deal with price control, for example? As long as we have this Act, we have a chance of talking about price control and subsidies in relation to the particular thing controlled and also in relation to the wider background.

The second matter under discussion is the question of price control. I was brought up in a very ancient school of economics. I was taught that the price of an article was fixed by economic laws and like the temperature curve in a living body, if the temperature goes up, we can do certain things. Price control is very much like tinkering with a thermometer. It serves to conceal—it may be quite necessary— the underlying factors.

Price control should also be related to quality control. In some instances articles are sold here at the same price or even for less than apparently the same article on the other side. I am assured by aggrieved consumers that the Irish product put up by the same firm is far inferior. I think we have to seek quality and price together and interrelate them. How is that to be done? We look around and see what should be the price of an article.

We have, of course, the Prices Advisory Body but it is my impression that the Prices Advisory Body has been subject to a lot of unfriendly criticism by various people. It is very natural, I am afraid, that the manufacturers' case is bound to be put a bit better than the consumers' case. The consumers are sometimes rather like a helpless collection of sheep. They have certain shepherds and watch-dogs and sometimes the watch-dogs will fight the sheep and sometimes each other. Among the watch-dogs, we have the Lower Prices Council, the Irish Housewives' Association, the Trade Union Congress. To those we look to protect the consumers. If you are to have price control, you will want consumers' protection so that the consumer will understand why prices are kept to certain levels. In connection with the Prices Advisory Body, there ought to be some Press agent or some person who would give a statement to the Press after a particular meeting and not entrust it to such casual reports as may appear in the ordinary way. The Prices Advisory Body is so important that it should have a public relations officer of some sort to let the ordinary people in different parts of the country know why the prices are as they are.

Lastly, and most dangerous of all, is the question of food subsidies. I understand they are going to cost us approximately £8,000,000 in the coming year. The first thing one wonders about is whether it is really necessary to subsidise for people who can afford it. Would it be conceivable for the Minister, with all his resources and qualifications, to devise some scheme whereby food subsidies could operate for the people needing them most— possibly old age pensioners, and so forth? I do not want to suggest the setting-up of another bureaucracy or the setting-up of ration cards, and so forth, but I think the system of food subsidies for all is a little bit too extensive and might easily appear as an extravagance. I suppose the most important of the food subsidies is that for bread and flour. I wonder how that very high subsidy is related to our soft wheat policy. Perhaps that is a little beyond the confines of this present discussion.

Those are the two lines of thought development that I wished to submit to my colleagues in the Chamber. We need not deplore the extension of the Act for another year. It will give us a very good opportunity this time next year to see what has been done and also to see if something cannot be done to rationalise part of the price control mechanism and also the food subsidies.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

Gan amhras, is féidir linn díospóireacht leathan a bheith againn ar an mBille seo. Dob fhéidir linn tabhairt fé ar abhar luach an bhídh atá á cháineadh, ar abhar an córas taistil agus ar gach rud mar sin. Dob fhéidir linn gach rud mar sin do thabhairt isteach faoin mBille seo.

Is dócha gurb é an rud is tábhachtaí ná an costas maireachtála. Sin é an rud is mó a bhí faoi dhíospóireacht sa Dáil agus is dócha gurb é an rud is mó anseo freisin mar rud é sin atá ag goilliúint ar na daoine ar fud na tíre fé láthair. Sé an fáth is mó go bhfuil sé ag goilliúint orthu ná gur cheap siad—cuid acu, go h-áirithe—go mbeadh feabhas mór ar luach an bhídh agus ar an gcostas maireachtála nuair a bheadh athrú Rialtais againn. Tá fhios ag na daoine sin anois ná raibh na cainteoirí a chuaigh ar fud na tíre roimh an toghchán deireannach agus a thug geallúintí go flaithiúil ach ag chur dalladh mullóg orthu. Rinneadar iarracht ar dhalladh mullóg a chur ar an ngnáth-dhuine ach tá fhios ag cách anois—agus is féidir é sin a fheiscint go soiléir—ná raibh na daoine a thug na geallúintí sin i ndáiríribh.

Is dócha gur fearr gan dul siar rómhór ar an rud sin ná ar cad dúradh roimh an toghchán ná ar na rudaí a thit amach cúpla bliain ó shoin. Sí an cheist atá os ár gcomhair anois ná an scéim atá beartaithe ag an Rialtas chun an costas maireachtála a laghdú. Ní thógfainn ar fad ar an lucht polaitíochta dá ndéanfaidís iarracht ar an gcostas maireachtála a laghdú nó dá gcuirfidís in iúl do na daoine go ndéanfaidís é: ní thógfainn orthu é dá gceapfaidís go ndéanfaidís é. Is baolach nach mar sin atá an scéal le cuid acu, go háirithe. Do bhí fios maith acu ná féadfaidís rud ar bith a dhéanamh mar gheall air go dtí go dtiocfadh an t-am nuair a bheadh ísliú ar an gcostas maireachtála ar fud an domhain go léir.

No doubt the burden of the discussion in the debate in this House will be on the question of the cost of living, but that topic has been so well dealt with elsewhere that I do not propose to go into it very much here to-day because it would take up the time of the House to do so, and I do not believe in what might be described as a futile debate.

A few expressions that fell from Senator Burke were responsible for my getting to my feet. He said the present Government were responsible for keeping the cost of living stable. To me, that appears an extraordinary statement because they have done no such thing. It was the Government that was in office before them that kept the cost of living under control. The difference between the spokesman of that Government and the spokesmen of the present Government is that the politicians who form the present Government did not confine themselves to stating that they would keep the cost of living stable: they went out and said emphatically that they were going to bring it down. Now it emerges that some of the leaders want to repudiate responsibility for those statements. It is an extraordinary state of affairs in Ireland if we find that members of the rank and file of a Party or Parties can go around the country and tell the electorate certain things, tell them in a very emphatic way that certain things will be done; and that the leaders will come along afterwards and say that they had no responsibility for those statements. If that is going to be the case henceforth in the political life of this country, then what are we up against? The people will not know where they are. Apart entirely from any statements that may have been made from public platforms, there is no doubt that there was a propaganda carried on against the previous Government in connection with prices. We all saw the tabular statements that appeared in the Press, especially in the provincial Press, a comparison between the prices that obtained last year at the time of the General Election and the prices that obtained in 1951. Of course, there is no doubt about it, the implication in that was this—those people who inserted those figures in the Press meant to convey that they believed that these prices were too high and that their policy was to bring them down.

Senator Burke mentioned the reduction in the price of wheat. I did not intend mentioning that myself, but because of the way in which he alluded to it I feel that I must say something about it. He appeared to derive a certain amount of satisfaction from the fact that the present Minister for Agriculture had reduced the price of wheat by something like 15 per cent. The Senator regarded that as an achievement. I suppose it would be in line with a statement made by the Taoiseach in the Dáil when he said that the farmers were not entitled to the price they were getting for their wheat and, therefore, he thought he and his Government were justified in reducing the price to the extent they did. The tillage farmers, he said, were not entitled to the money they were getting out of their wheat. If that is his view, then we would like to know who would be entitled. If, as a result of the reduction in the price of wheat, the acreage of tillage goes down and we are compelled by circumstances to import wheat from abroad, we may have to pay even a greater price than the farmers were getting for their wheat last year, then would not our farmers be more entitled to the price than the farmers in foreign parts?

The salient feature of the wheat question is this—I mentioned it here before—if there is a reduction of 15 per cent. in the price of wheat delivered to the mills in this coming year, why is not that reduction being passed on to the consumers? A lot of us talk about the cost of living and pay lip service to the welfare of the poorer sections of the community.

Mr. Hickey

That wheat will not be milled until next Christmas.

Mr. Kissane

Whatever time it comes into effect—to-morrow or in three months, or next Christmas as the Senator said—we want to know whether this reduction will be passed on to the consumers in the shape of cheaper flour and bread. If that were done, that would be a contribution toward reducing the cost of living.

Mr. Norton

What would the complaint against the Government be then?

Mr. Hawkins

It is a decision we want.

Mr. Kissane

Here would be an opportunity for the Government to carry out some of the promises they made in the last general election. If there is to be a reduction of 15 per cent. in the price of wheat to the tillage farmers, let that reduction be passed on to the consumers. We want to know whether a decision in that regard has been made or is about to be made by the Government—or is it just a question of raking in that much money from the farmers into the National Treasury? I do not know exactly what the sum is that will be spared by the reduction in the price of wheat, I have not seen any official figure given for it, but whatever it is it should be passed on to the consumer and not devoted to other purposes of which we have not been told.

Senator Burke charged the Fianna Fáil Government with extravagance. When a responsible Senator mentions the word "extravagance" we would like to know in what way the former Government was guilty of extravagance. Being a member of the Fine Gael Party, does he mean that we have spent too much on social services— and, if so, we would like to know where the economy should take place and what items of expenditure on social services should be cut out? If that is what he means by extravagance, or if it is not what he means, then we would like to know what he does mean.

During the last general election, we had politicians belonging to the Coalition groups going around and telling the electorate in the one breath that they were out for economies in Government expenditure and were going to reduce taxation, and that they were at the same time going to improve social services. If any magician could show how all these things could be done together, I would have great respect for him, but they do not seem to tally. It has often been said before, that if you increase the social services somebody has to find the money to meet their cost. It cannot be produced out of empty space. The difficulty is that a good many of the people who talked about improving the social services will be very silent about the sources from which the money is to come for the financing of them.

I remember that, when we were discussing this Bill here last year, many Senators who were then, of course, in opposition, were very vocal about the cost of living. One would think from the way they spoke, and of the way the politicians spoke in other places, that the Fianna Fáil Government of the day was responsible for the high cost of living. I would imagine that the tune is entirely different now. That, of course, is because those people have moved from one side of the House to the other. I pointed out at that time, and I suppose it is no harm to mention it again, although I do not like too much repetition, that two things enter into consideration in connection with the cost of living. The first is the cost of the goods that we import. We have to pay the producers of them, people in foreign countries, what they consider to be an economic price for them. I pointed out then that no Government could have much control over the cost of imported materials. No doubt, the Minister and every member of his Government know that. They knew it even when it was a grand medium through which to attack the then Government.

The second thing that enters into this question is the cost of the things that are produced on the land of this country, and the goods manufactured in our factories. Our farmers, of course, are entitled to an economic price for what they produce. I referred to that when speaking on this Bill here last year. I said that before any Government, or any Minister, would consider reducing the prices which our farmers were getting for their produce, they should think very carefully, look into the future and see if such a thing would be a good national policy in the long run. Let it be said here that the only people who have had to suffer up to now in connection with the reduction in prices are the farmers. I do not know whether that policy is to be continued. Of course, there is always the danger that when politicians start travelling along that road they will go farther. We do not know yet, and so we shall have to wait and see. If, as I said before, the reduction in the price of wheat which is to take place in the coming year were passed on to the consuming public, it would not be too bad, but we have no indication of that so far.

I do not think I should delay the House any longer. I sincerely hope that the Government will find it possible to carry out at least some of the promises which they made during the last general election campaign. As I said earlier it is an extraordinary thing, when you find members of Parties going around telling the people through the medium of leaflets and literature, that if put into office they would do certain things, and then when the change of Government takes place their leaders come along and say that they had no responsibility for those promises.

Mr. J.L. O'Sullivan

Would the Senator tell us the value of cattle and beef exports in 1936 and their value at the present time?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That is not a point of order.

Mr. J.L. O'Sullivan

The Senator refuses to answer that question.

Mr. Kissane

I am not bound to answer it because I would not be allowed to answer it. In any event, I do not think it has any relation to the Supplies and Services Bill which is before the House. I am not a person who believes that the members of any Government can perform miracles or that they can be magicians in their own way. They have been nine months in office, and, although nine months is not a very long period, if they have not been able to reduce the cost of living in that period, they should be in a position to give us some idea of what plans they have in mind to reach that most desirable objective. If the Minister for Industry and Commerce would even give us some idea of what proposals he has in mind to reduce the cost of living and to bring down taxation, as they said they would, we would be prepared to wait—we would have patience—for a year, two years, three years—whatever time it might be—but we would need to get some indication of it and we have got none so far.

Mr. Hickey

I feel that everybody in the country would expect something better than to have to listen to two Senators trying to score Party debating points against each other. My regret with regard to this discussion is that no inclination has been shown to get down to the root problem. I am satisfied that the Minister is prepared to go along the right road, but, as the saying is, it depends on the direction he is going. I want to point out both to Deputy Burke and Deputy Kissane that they have not touched at all on the things which it is necessary to do in relation to reducing prices. We have had reference to wheat and other articles of food here, but have we any idea of what is happening in the country at all? Have we ever thought about the number of private companies, as distinct from public companies, operating in this country and about what chance the Prices Advisory Body has of investigating the affairs of these companies?

I want to tell the Minister that people have lost confidence in that body, and I do not blame them, because the only thing we hear from time to time is that there is an increase in this and that there is an increase in that. I know that when the Prices Advisory Body meets, all the trained minds of the country are mobilised on behalf of the merchants and the employers to prove their case for an increase. What machinery has that body for the investigation of the other side of the picture, the position of the consumer? I am suggesting that they have not got any, and I want to say further that I want to see this prices machinery in Kildare Street completely disbanded. I could quote speeches by the Minister's predecessor with regard to profits and so on, and suggesting that no civil servant would be sufficiently daring to investigate profits and to declare where these profits are being made.

Let us see where we are with regard to profits. The taxable profits for the year 1946-47 were £18,924,190 and the net tax payable in that year was £5,423,320. At the end of that year, the previous Government removed the excess profits tax and made a present of almost £3,000,000 to the people engaged in industry. Did we get any decrease in the cost of living? In 1948-49, the taxable profits went from £18,000,000 to £22,000,000 but, instead of an increase in the previous year's tax payable of £5,000,000, the tax payable was only £2,887,000. In 1950-51, the taxable profits went up to £24,000,000 and the tax payable was only £2,412,000. In 1951-52, the taxable profits went up to £26,741,000 and the tax payable was only £2,600,000.

Professor Hayes

On £26,000,000?

Mr. Hickey

Yes. In 1952-53, the taxable profits were £28,740,000 and the tax payable was only £2,855,000. The net tax paid on taxable profits of £18,000,000 in 1947-48—I want to put this before everybody here so that we may talk of real matters and not try to score debating points—was £5,423,320 and the net tax paid in 1952-53 on taxable profits of £28,740,000 was only £2,500,000—£2,500,000 short of what was paid in 1947-48. I am suggesting to the Minister that he give the trained minds of the men who are capable of investigating these matters to the Prices Advisory Body and then we will know where we are.

I should like to know—we have had talk about the price of wheat and bread—if the Minister is aware of how many private companies have started up in the handling of wheat and grain from the farmer or importer until the time when the bread is on the tables of the people. To my own knowledge, in one area alone, there are about five companies which have started since 1947-48. Who are the shareholders and where is the capital for these new companies coming from? I am quite satisfied that the share capital of one company, £360,000, comes out of the pockets of the farmer who produced the wheat for the bread which goes on the table of the ordinary consumer. What check have we on that?

I listened recently to a debate on wheat and we had Senator Hawkins holding up the report of the Lavery Commission for the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister answering him by asking who was responsible for the £1 between the field and the mill. I heard Senator Ó Buachalla quoting from that report that there were not excessive profits made. I differ very strongly from him in that, because I have taken the trouble to study that report and I have compared the capital invested in the milling industry at the time when it first got protection with what it was in later years. My information is that our bag of flour is charged on the basis of what it costs to produce it in the most uneconomical mill in the country.

I am suggesting that there is a need, and a very urgent need, to get the machinery behind the Prices Advisory Body to deal with excess profits and prices. If the excess profits tax had been left in operation, the Government would have received £27,116,000 in five years, instead of which they received only £13,075,000, thereby making a present of £14,000,000 in five years to what I call profiteers. There is no good in criticising the Prices Advisory Body because they have not got the machinery to investigate. What machinery is there to investigate the cost of the wheat coming from the field to the mill and from the mill to the baker? None whatever. What machinery have we? How many accountants have they at their disposal to deal with the combines and their profits? All we hear is that an increase is necessary in respect of this or that by the Prices Advisory Body. That is all the information we have. I agree with Senator Fearon that there is need for some publicity as to why decisions are arrived at.

We now come to this question of the private companies. Here is the position. The number of private companies on the register rose from 1,144 at the end of 1925 to 2,280 at the end of 1937 and 4,981 at the end of 1949. The number of public companies rose from 312 in 1925 to 356 in 1937 and 350 in 1949.

Here is another interesting feature. Between the end of 1937 and the end of 1949 the paid-up share capital of private companies increased from £21.6 millions to £45,000,000 while that of the public companies increased from £24.9 millions to £36,000,000. The paid-up share capital of private companies exceeds that of public companies by one-quarter, whereas, before the war, that of the public companies exceeded private companies by roughly one-seventh.

I think these figures indicate the urgent need there is for a thorough investigation into prices. In addition, I want to say that there is also a crying need for a change in company law but we will probably have another opportunity of dealing with that matter. As far as company law is concerned, what are the profits and what information is available with regard to £360,000 share capital in respect of a private company? Where does the £360,000 share capital come from? No outside body was allowed to take a share. The shareholders were limited and the directors were defined. We hear a lot of talk about the speeches made in 1936 and I saw where speeches were quoted in 1945 in the other House. What is the use of all the talk when such a position obtains?

Mr. Cogan

While I agree with Senator Hickey that we should direct our attention in a constructive way to the solution of the economic problems that beset our people, I cannot say I share his views that the solution lies in the establishment of more inquiries, more inquisitions and more tribunals of civil servants. I think the solution lies in an entirely different direction. It lies mainly in increased stimulation of private enterprise, sharp competition and the elimination as far as possible of unlawful combines directed against the consumers' and in many cases against the producers' interests. These are some of the constructive proposals which I would like to develop at some length but in a debate such as this, on a Bill such as this, there is not as wide a scope as there might be.

This Bill gives the Minister power to do a considerable number of things but, in the main, the powers that he has under this Bill are directed towards the question of reducing prices or reducing the cost of living. Less than perhaps 12 months ago, I had the honour and pleasure of speaking from the same platform as the Minister for Industry and Commerce. We were not, of course, speaking on behalf of the same Party. I need hardly say that the Minister was fluent and very eloquent. He was speaking in close proximity to the Long Woman's Grave in the County Louth and I think he almost convinced his hearers that that unhappy long woman had died because the cost of living was too high.

At that time and during the weeks that immediately followed, there was a tornado of attack on the Government because of the cost of living. There was a shower of promises of what would be done if a change of Government could only be brought about. As a result of the promises that were made openly and vigorously by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and, perhaps, more surreptitiously by the Fine Gael Party, there was a change of Government and over a period of nine months since the change of Government there has not been any reduction in the cost of living. There has, however, been an increase in spite of the fact that we have the Leader of the Labour Party, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, concerned with the enforcement of this Act.

It is no answer for those who are on the Fine Gael side to say that in the few weeks preceding the general election a few of the more prominent members of the Party made no definite promise to bring down the cost of living. They had been making those promises over the weeks previously and during the general election and all but a few of the more prominent members of the Party continued to make those promises. The literature issued by the Party contained all those promises that the cost of living would be brought down to the figure which prevailed in 1951.

It is true that in some of their literature they did not make those promises in writing. They followed the technique of the publishers of horror comics and by illustration they conveyed what they would do with the cost of living. There was a picture of the loaf at 9d. under Fianna Fáil and at 6d., I think, under the inter-Party Government thereby, apparently, rating the intelligence of their supporters so low that they appeared to be incapable of reading and capable only of being impressed by the same type of propaganda as is used by the publishers of horror comics.

Anyhow, I suppose it was partly effective. It is true to say that the Party, of which the Minister for Industry and Commerce is leader, did not try to hide their light under a bushel, so to speak. They did not try to convey their deception of the people in the same form as Fine Gael. They openly, deliberately and boldly said they would bring down the cost of living. I have some quotations here and I believe it is desirable that they should be put on the record because it is not right that any Party should be permitted to get into power by making promises which they knew to be false but which they made in the hope that the people would be sufficiently charitable and sufficiently forgiving to forget all about them immediately and to forgive the deception that was carried out on them.

One of the most prominent leaders of the Labour Party, whose name and, even more than that, whose photograph has appeared in the British newspapers over the past few days, immediately before the election said:

"Before Labour would participate in a Government, or with any Party, or group of Parties, they would insist that the prices of bread, butter, tea, sugar, cigarettes, tobacco and the worker's pint are reduced immediately."

That statement was made by Deputy Seán Dunne at Navan, as reported in the Meath Chronicle of the 15th May, 1954. I think it is no harm to mention that in the same Deputy's election literature he said that anything Dunne cannot do cannot be done. It would appear that the enforcement of this reduction in the cost of living cannot be done because Dunne cannot do it or has not done it, at any rate up to the present.

Another prominent member of the Labour Party, Deputy Casey, was reported in the Cork Examiner of the 29th April, 1954, as follows:—

"The first point in the Labour Party programme is that the cost of living must be kept within the means of the ordinary people. The Labour Party would neither associate with nor take part in any Government that would not amend the position so as to make bread, butter, tea and other essential foodstuffs again available to the people at prices which they could afford. The Labour Party was openly pledged to that policy."

It is no answer on the part of some of the Fine Gael leaders to say that they are not responsible for the promises made by the Labour Party. In the course of the election, the Fine Gael leaders declared they were entering into a Government in alliance with the Labour Party. Therefore, they were accepting without reservation or qualification the pledges being given by their proposed partners. Any attempt to ride away from these pledges just because a few of the legal gentlemen in the Fine Gael Party were cautious in the last stages of the election campaign will not deceive anybody. This Government were committed up to the hilt to a reduction of the cost of living by their pre-election speeches and by their guarantees to the people. I think it is wrong that the people should be deceived in this cruel way. It is wrong that such a deception should go unchallenged. It is wrong that it should not be condemned in the most emphatic way by all who take an interest in the preservation of a democratic system of Government. After all, the only control the people have over a Parliament is that they extract certain pledges from those who seek election, trusting that, when elected, the people who gave those pledges will be sufficiently honest and will have the integrity to carry them out.

Mr. L'Estrange

Like point 15 of the 17 point programme.

Mr. Cogan

I will deal with that later because it is important. Those pledges were given in a most emphatic way and the people were deceived. It may perhaps be a reflection on the people that they allowed themselves so easily to be deceived, but people are always easily deceived in regard to things that they wish for. Everybody wishes for a lowering of the cost of living. It is something that is very near to everybody's heart. When you wish very much for something, and when it is promised to you in a most emphatic way, it is very easy to deceive you into believing that it can be done. The average person could hardly see how it would be possible to reduce the cost of living and, at the same time, to reduce taxation—and there has been a good deal of challenging on this point by Fianna Fáil. The two things appear to be contradictory. I suppose that quite a large number of people hoped for a miracle. Perhaps they thought that some of those who were seeking office so vigorously at that time were capable of performing miracles. They have found out now that the people who sought office at that time on the strength of those false promises were just ordinary human beings like the rest of us and that they cannot work any miracles or bring down the cost of living. They have not reduced the cost of living and that is exactly what any intelligent person would have expected.

Possibly, but I would think even more by conditions of supply and demand in the world markets. During the last three months of the life of the first inter-Party Government the cost of living rose sharply and the Ministers of that Government nearly went out of their wits, they nearly went up the walls, in excitement about it but they found they could not do anything about it. The cost of living was rising because of world conditions. In spite of anything the succeeding Government could do, it continued to rise. At the same time—and rightly so, I would say—the level of wages continued to rise so as to get ahead or keep abreast of the rising cost of living. The Fianna Fáil Government succeeded in stabilising the position towards the end of 1952 and since then the rises in the cost of living have been very moderate. There has been a slight rise since then, not due in any way to any action that could be attributed to the Government.

If it was right to say, as the Minister and his associates say, that the food subsidies should not have been reduced, then the correct action for the incoming Government to take would have been to restore these food subsidies in full. There was no other action they could take if they were honest in condemning the Fianna Fáil Government for their action. They knew, of course, that that could not be done.

If Fianna Fáil was to maintain the food subsidies in full without any reduction, they would have had in 1952 to impose very severe taxation in order to provide the money to finance them. If they had succeeded in holding the cost of living at the high figure it was then —I think it was 115—they would have had to impose so many million pounds of additional taxation that the burden, pressing on our ordinary people, would have been every bit as severe as were the increases in the cost of living. Fianna Fáil tried, as far as it was in their power, to cushion the weaker sections of the community against the increases. They permitted a rise in wages to a level that more than offset the rise in the cost of living, and, in addition, they raised the standard of the social services so that the poorer sections of the community would be protected. They tried to adjust the situation, as far as it was possible, in the interests of the ordinary people.

The fact that they did that, and did everything that it was possible to do, has been confirmed by the present Government who have been unable to alter the position in any substantial way. If Fianna Fáil went violently wrong in the line taken during their short period in office, then the whole policy should have been reversed by those who succeeded them. Everything done since the present Government took office is a vindication of the general and financial policy of Fianna Fáil. It confirms, in the minds of the people, the fact that that policy was right. What was wrong was the bitter and vindictive deception that was carried out against that Government by those who are now in office.

Deputy Dan Morrissey was right when he said that the bitterness and the bickering had to a great extent been removed from public life by the accession of the present Government to office. We know that is a good thing. It is perhaps one of the redeeming features of a situation in which we have changed a good Government for a bad Government, but in doing so we have lifted a lot of the bickering and the bitterness out of Irish public life. There is no doubt but that that bickering was certain to do a considerable amount of harm.

You are indebted to your imagination for your facts.

Mr. Cogan

——over the price of meat, that it was fixed by other factors. If I am indebted to my imagination for that fact, it is open to the Minister to produce the reply he gave in the Dáil. I can assure the House that it will be in accord with what I have said, that the Government have disowned all responsibility for the high price of meat, while, at the same time, the other side of the Government, the Fine Gael side, and particularly the Minister for Agriculture, expands his chest every time the word "cattle" is mentioned, particularly with reference to their present prices. It is up to the two sides of the Government to reconcile the difference of attitude in regard to this matter.

I go back to where I started. It is necessary to clear up these points, to remove and destroy the misrepresentation that has been put over so vigorously upon the people. It is necessary to clear up the point that Fianna Fáil did not in any way lower the standard of living of our people, that, while the cost of living rose for a time under their administration, the level of social services and of wages rose proportionately, so that the standard of living was maintained. Nobody will suggest for a moment, however, that the standard of living is sufficiently high or is as high as we would like it to be at present. It is no higher to-day than it was when Fianna Fáil left office and I am in agreement with the Government on this—I think we will all be in agreement on it—that we would all like to see it higher; but the standard of living of our people can only be raised by incentives to increased agricultural and industrial production.

I have no sympathy with, and in fact am quite repelled by the suggestion of Senator Hickey that there should be the most searching investigations and inquiries into the profits of all those who are engaged in production and marketing. You are not going to promote increased production that way. You are not going to cut down costs. Increased efficiency in production will reduce costs. But in the main the operation of free enterprise in times of peace is the best way to bring down prices. The action taken by the Minister's predecessor in introducing legislation for the prevention of undesirable combination on the part of business firms is, I think, the only step that can be taken in that direction. I do not think there is any necessity to go further. There is a necessity for the most vigorous attack on the various obstacles that are preventing increased production. There is a necessity to encourage every citizen, whether he be engaged in production in a big way or a small way, or whether he be the owner of a manufacturing industry or just the owner of a small farm. He should be given the incentive to go further and to get all he can out of the field or factory that is at his disposal.

There is also need for the promotion, where it is necessary, of State enterprises of a productive nature such as you have in Bord na Móna and other companies of that kind which are seeking to add to the wealth of the country and to raise the standard of living of our people. It is along those lines that we can raise the standard of living. It is not by misrepresentation and it is not by the type of Party warfare which prevails in this State. There ought to be recognition of the fundamental fact that it is only by increasing efficiency in production, distribution, transport and marketing, that we can raise the standard of living of our people.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Mr. S.T. Ruane

Senator Ó Buachalla in the opening debate on this Bill this afternoon treated us to a rather interesting review of the circumstances that led up to the necessity for such legislation as this. He did not forget to remind us that when we were on the other side of the House we expressed our dissatisfaction on several occasions with such legislation. We are dissatisfied with it to-day and, if it has to be tolerated, it is for reasons that were very clearly set forth by the Parliamentary Secretary in his opening statement here this afternoon when he pointed out that the Government was taking a practical interest in removing the circumstances that led originally to the necessity for such legislation. He pointed out that already three Bills concerned with the matter have passed into law, but that at least ten more will be necessary before we reach a state of affairs in which such legislation as a Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Bill will be rendered unnecessary.

No matter what group or section we represent, the question of price control is a matter that concerns everybody. As Senator Fearon pointed out it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to bring in a measure which will render such legislation as this unnecessary. An increase in the cost of living invariably leads to increased demands for wages. Now, whereas quite a large number of the working class in this country have the protection of organised bodies to try, successfully from time to time, to narrow the margin between the cost of living and wages, I would like to point out that in the rural areas and in the small towns there are many of the working class who have no such protection and, as a result, they do not enjoy the privileges that organised workers enjoy in having competent bodies to ensure and safeguard their rights.

A measure of this kind, of course, leads to the temptation to taunt people with promises made and we had to-day from Senator Kissane a reference to an interesting tabular pamphlet that was circulated during the last general election by the Fine Gael Party pointing out the difference in prices that obtained during the three years of the Fianna Fáil Government that succeeded the three and a half years of the inter-Party régime. There is no doubt about it the vast difference is there and, if promises were made, as they were made in 1947, that a change of Government would lead to better times for the great majority of the people, the change of Government did bring about the realisation of certain promises that were made. For instance, it was promised that in the event of a change the cost of tobacco, the cost of the pint and the cost of a few luxuries for the average man in this country would be brought down; and they were brought down. If, during the 1951 campaign, promises were made by people in support of the inter-Party experiment that, with the return of an inter-Party Government, similar conditions would obtain, I do not see how anyone can blame those who stated that that would occur. But I never heard a promise made by any Minister of the present Government or, for that matter, by any Parliamentary Secretary, that a return of the inter-Party Government would mean an immediate reversion to the prices that obtained during the 1948-1951 régime. They certainly did promise that they would do their best to bring about those conditions. They have set about doing their best and they have succeeded to a certain extent. There is no doubt that, if there had not been a change of Government, butter would still be 4/2 per lb.; that very article of food at 4/2 per lb. was taken off the table of many a person, not alone in Dublin but throughout the country. Certainly if Fianna Fáil was in power to-day, tea would be costing 1/4 more per lb. than it costs at the present time. Therefore, if promises were made, and they were made by supporters of the inter-Party experiment, that every effort would be made to bring about conditions which would reduce the cost of living, in the short space of seven months a good start has been made along the road to a reduced cost of living.

I was amused and amazed to a certain extent when I heard these references to promises. I could not prevent my mind recalling 1930-31 and early 1932 and the fabulous Fianna Fáil promises that were made to reduce taxation by £2,000,000, to bring about conditions that would render unnecessary the great trek of people from this country to England and America, conditions that not only would provide employment for the unemployed in this country but would necessitate the return of exiles.

Of course, that may be too far to go back, but we need not go quite so far to come to other promises that were made by the same Party. I refer to the 17 points published by the Fianna Fáil Party after the general election in 1951, before the new Government was formed, the publication of which was responsible for attaching to the Fianna Fáil Party the support of certin Independents, which gave Fianna Fáil an opportunity of functioning as the Government for three years. One of the 17 points was a promise that if Fianna Fáil were the next Government the food subsidies would be maintained, which would keep down the cost of bread and various other essential articles of food. We know that that promise was not kept, that the food subsidies were removed and the cost of living skyrocketed during the three years of the Fianna Fáil Government and before they were a year in office.

Price control originated in 1939 and in the subsequent years as a result of the prices that were charged for certain commodities; it is to the credit of the Minister for Industry and Commerce at the time that penal legislation was enacted to deal with people who were charging exorbitant prices for certain essential commodities. Even though jail sentences and fines were imposed, no one can say that the efforts made at that time to control prices were successful, because when people who felt they were fleeced went to the trouble of reporting the matter, six or seven months elapsed before the matter was investigated and many people could not face up to the inquiries that would follow before proper action would be taken against traders who charged excessive prices.

I am satisfied and the country, generally speaking, is satisfied that the present Government is making an earnest effort to keep down living costs, and not without success. During the emergency the only thing the Government of the time succeeded in keeping down was wages. The margin between wages and the cost of essential articles of food and clothing became greater as days went on. It was only when the change of Government took place that something was done to restore a balance, when the ceiling on wages was removed and the wage earner was able to meet his commitments for food and clothing and other essentials.

It has been stated by more than one Senator that the only method to secure lower living costs and a better standard of living is to increase production. Under the inter-Party Government of 1948 to 1951 a big step was taken to encourage increased production. Certain Ministers of the inter-Party Government went to London and met their opposite numbers around a conference table and there negotiated a settlement in regard to the marketing of agricultural produce and live stock, from which the farming community are reaping the benefit to-day and will, please God, continue to reap the benefit.

Reference has been made to the fact that the people would be much better off now if they had the progeny of the calves that were destroyed during a certain period of this country's history. I was surprised to hear Senator Cogan stating this evening, if I managed to catch what he said correctly, that within the last three months more calves were destroyed than were destroyed during the period to which we take exception.

There is every evidence that the people are satisfied with the present régime, that they mean to give the Government an opportunity to carry on to a finale as a Government and to bring about a realisation of the ten points they have put before the people as their objective. They have almost five years more in which to carry out that programme. I am quite satisfied that, by the end of that time, to a very great extent, if not entirely, they will have carried into effect that assurance.

The fact that the people are satisfied with the present order of things was made abundantly clear when the Minister for Finance, Mr. Sweetman, asked for the last loan. That loan was over-subscribed and many people who had not heretofore invested in such loans subscribed to it. That in itself is evidence of the fact that this Government is handling the situation in a business-like way. It has captured the confidence of the people and will, I am quite satisfied, justify that confidence long before its term of office ends.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

In discussing this Bill for the continuance of the powers granted under the Supplies and Services Act, I think we are entitled to assume that the original Act gave, and this Bill will continue, the powers needed to control prices and to cope with whatever rises might otherwise occur in the cost of living. I should like to say at the outset that I am not quite happy—as several other Senators have said—about this continuing of emergency powers and the continued failure to introduce permanent legislation to deal with these matters.

I came across an example the other day of the sort of thing that can be done under these emergency powers which we are now being asked—rather reluctantly, I think, by the Minister— to continue. The point that I am going to mention arises under a statutory instrument, No. 148 of 1954, the Wheat Order, 1954. By Article 29 of this Order made by the Minister for Agriculture, we find that the following situation obtains. I am quoting from the Order:—

"Where an inspector has reasonable grounds for believing that any person has purchased, or sold, or milled wheat during the previous three months such inspector"——

the Department's inspector—

"——may request such person (who shall comply with such request) to inform him (a) whether he has in fact purchased, or sold, or milled wheat during the previous three months; and (b) if he so purchased any wheat, particulars thereof and the name and address of the vendor; and (c) if he so sold any wheat particulars thereof and the name and address of the purchaser; and (d) if he has so milled any wheat the quantity thereof and the name and address of every person for whom he has milled such wheat."

A person so interrogated by a ministerial inspector is bound by the terms of this Order to comply with the inspector's request for information of this kind. It might, in fact, be evidence which would incriminate himself. There is no question but that that Order is permitted. The Minister has power to make an Order of this kind to compel any citizen to give evidence against himself, evidence upon which he might subsequently be convicted, because, by Article 31, sub-section (1) of the Act mentioned, a Minister is granted the right to "provide for any incidental or supplementary matters for which such Minister thinks it expedient for the purposes of the Order or direction to provide." That boiled down to simple language means the Minister can by Statutory Order do pretty well what he likes.

I cite that example as an instance of a dangerous practice which might even be considered, I think, to interfere with the ordinary lives and rights of the individuals and citizens of this country. Such a dangerous practice, I suggest, arises from the fact that we are still using as instruments of Government emergency powers, the need for which ought to have disappeared by this time, emergency powers which ought, I think, to be replaced as soon as possible by permanent legislation, giving the Government the limited powers required for dealing with the problems now arising.

On the question of the cost of living in general, we have heard this evening various views expressed by various Senators. We have read the Dáil debates and some of us have heard portions of them, and we have heard both Government and Opposition views. Speaking personally, I am growing a little tired of hearing one side say: "You did not keep your promises" and the other side saying: "Well, neither did you." It seems to me that a useful conclusion relative to the problems facing the country does not derive from that kind of debate, because I submit it may very well be true that both sides, in making statements of that kind about the other side, are telling the truth. That is why, because there is a feeling on both sides of the House that successive Governments have failed to grapple with this question of prices and the cost of living, I suggest there is a certain amount of acrimony and bitterness on both sides of the House, in challenging and throwing accusations across the floor of the House.

Why in fact have successive Governments failed to take effective action on this question of the cost of living and prices in general? I think some indication of the reason for that failure is given in the recent debate by Deputy Lemass when he says at column 188 of Volume 148, No. 2—and I quote:—

"I have never tried to conceal my view that the widest powers given to the Government in relation to prices will not enable it to prevent prices going up if economic forces are driving them up or prevent prices going down if economic forces are driving them down."

Deputy Lemass admits, in fact, a relative helplessness on the part of any Government in the face of what he calls "economic forces". I would like to direct the attention of the Seanad for a moment to a consideration of what is meant by these "economic forces". It is true that outside the country, in relation to prices of raw materials and finished products which we are forced to import, the Government here cannot have very much effect upon the prices, but inside the country what are the "economic forces" that we are asked by speakers of the Opposition or of the Government to regard as uncontrollable, and over which, no matter what power we give to the Government, it will have no control?

Senator Ó Buachalla put the very legitimate question to the Minister as to what other powers he needed to cope with the situation if his present powers were not enough to enable him to bring down the cost of living. I would ask: what are our Governments afraid of—or perhaps I should say— of whom have our Governments been afraid? I would suggest that possibly we are allowing through our weakness as legislators, through the impotence of our Parliament in the matter, as referred to by Deputy Lemass, a new aristocracy of profit-takers to grow up in this country before whom we are pleased—and I regret it—to regard ourselves as powerless, no matter what the Legislature may desire.

There is sometimes in this country talk of the old ascendancy and their various defects. The old ascendancy is easy to hit to-day, but I think we should direct our attention towards the new ascendancy in this country, the ascendancy of the federation of manufacturers, the federation of employers, R.G.D.A.T.A. and the leaders—I say it with respect to the Minister—of some of our more restrictive craft trade unions. There is a tendency, I fear, in Ireland to-day to give a sort of sanctification to the profit system, and to a system which encourages self-appointed privileged sections of the community. I believe it is time that the Government took more effective steps to deal with these self-granted privileges.

It would be unfair to say that no effort has been made to curb such privileges, and to control prices and profits in this country, over the past 20 or 30 years. During the war, prices were fixed by the ministerial departmental method, by the civil servants behind closed doors. Something was done by our war-time Government in that direction by this method, and, owing to its error of making decisions behind closed doors, a great number of anomalies arose in decisions as to what would constitute a just profit margin, and so on. It was even suggested that representatives of certain sections of our community who could most easily gain the Minister's ear would find that the profit margins requested by them would be more favourably considered.

Consequently, and I think rightly, the first inter-Party Government introduced an improved piece of legislation, an effort which I regard as a better one. They set up the Prices Advisory Body, and I would like to say here that I disagree very strongly with Senator Hickey when he called for the abolition of this body. I would be strongly opposed to its being abolished, and I think the reasons he put forward for its being abolished were valid reasons for having its methods improved, but not valid reasons for having it wiped out. I think also that there was an indication that the last Fianna Fáil Government had it in their minds to abolish the Prices Advisory Body, and to get back to the old system of organising and fixing the prices of things behind closed departmental doors, with no consultation in public whatsoever. Consequently I want to express my approval of the fact that the present Government has decided not to adopt what was apparently going to be done by the Fianna Fáil Government, but to maintain this Prices Advisory Body.

It has, of course, certain defects. One of these is that the consumers have no direct representation on the body. It is true that there are trade union representatives, but the trade union representatives are handicapped by the fact that any manufacturer or representative of commercial interests can say that if prices are reduced it would mean a displacement of labour, or it would mean that their employees would have to work for reduced wages. When this is said, the trade union representatives feel it wiser to say nothing on behalf of the consumer. In other words, they are not truly representative of the consumers' interests. It is said sometimes, of course, in relation to the Prices Advisory Body, that all of us and all of them are consumers, and therefore they represent the consumers. I am afraid that this is a fallacious argument. Personally I should like to see more direct representation of the consumer on the Prices Advisory Body.

There is no question, however, but that the Prices Advisory Body, in dealing with this question of excessive prices, has brought about very considerable and obvious improvements upon previous systems. For one thing the investigation into prices is nearly always held in public, with the Press present. I consider that the Press accounts have not always been of the highest standard, but it seems to me of prime importance that investigations into how far high price levels are justified, should be held in public. The second improvement brought about by this body is that consumers' representatives are allowed to appear before the tribunal. They are allowed to state the case for the consumer, and to cross-examine witnesses appearing for the other interests. In fact, I would agree with Senator Hickey that it is a pity that this right of consumers, of the ordinary consuming public to go before the body and put their point of view, is not more widely availed of. The third improvement I see which has derived from the setting up of the Prices Advisory Body is that this is not just an examination of the price structure by the Minister's departmental subordinates.

We all know, I think in this country, that a very high standard exists in the Civil Service, but it is not as easy for the Minister's departmental subordinates to speak and act freely in relation to price levels, as it is for an independent body such as the Prices Advisory Body.

Yet, despite these advantages, the Prices Advisory Body has at present certain defects. For one thing, not all the investigations are held in public— a great portion of them are, but not all. Secondly, and perhaps even more important in this connection, not all the evidence is given in public, even at the public inquiries. Again and again it is stated, on behalf of the manufacturers or of commercial interests, that it would not be in their interests to reveal certain things about their costs and profits, though they are prepared to state them confidentially to the court. I think that that is a regrettable thing. One can see reasons for it, but I think it is regrettable that the full evidence is not given within the hearing of the public.

Necessarily there is a feeling on the part of the public that certain margins and certain costings are higher than is suggested sometimes by the published "average figures" which are put by witnesses for the traders or manufacturers. Then again, there is the disadvantage that the reports finally made after these investigations by the Prices Advisory Body, are not made public. That body reports to the Minister, who acts or fails to act as he sees fit, but nobody knows what that body has recommended. The most we are ever told is that they have made a specific recommendation in relation to prices, but never why. We are never told if there is any suggested modification, reservation or qualification in their recommendations. I think it would be a good thing if the Minister were to consider making the findings of the Prices Advisory Body available for the public, after, of course, he has considered them, because I think they are confidential documents until he has had time to examine them himself. Lastly, in this connection, dealing with the defects that still remain in the working of this body, I would say that there would appear to be a feeling among the members of that body that if a fat profit has always been made in relation to a particular commodity or any particular trade, that profit rate must be maintained. There is far too great a hesitancy on their part in dealing with profit rates which clearly have been too high for too long, and have too long been tolerated.

Nevertheless despite these defects, and with all respect to Senator Hickey, I think that the Prices Advisory Body as it stands is still a most useful body. I see proof of that fact in certain indirect results, perhaps, to which I would like to draw the attention of the Seanad. For instance, there was a very distinguished civil servant who was a member of the Prices Advisory Body as it was set up. He made it his business to investigate personally all the costings and the accounts of the various firms that came before that body to request that they be allowed to increase their prices. I remember that when he came to consider the profits of the laundries, for instance, he said in effect: "I notice that the laundry representatives quote an ‘average' profit rate, but also that, according to the figures at the disposal of the Revenue Commissioners, although this average rate is true, laundries X, Y and Z—he did not name them—"returned profit rates very considerably in excess of this average".

Representatives of the trades concerned were not too pleased with this. The same kind of thing happened in relation to the price of coal. This particular member of the Prices Advisory Body seemed, as far as could be observed, from the point of view of the coal merchants, to have too much information. His information was derived, of course, from departmental files, but also from personal investigation. I remember on one occasion when he questioned the coal merchants as to how they justified a certain charge for taking the coal from the dock, unloading it in their yards and reloading it before sending it to customers. He asked them: "Do you ever, in fact, load direct from the dock and deliver direct to customers?" They said: "Practically never." But while investigating this, he had gone down to the quays on the day when such and such a boat was being unloaded, and had seen the carts and lorries of such and such a firm being loaded for direct delivery from ship to customer. The merchants' representatives then reluctantly admitted that the figure they were putting in to justify their profit margin for unloading and reloading did not, in fact, relate to anything like all of their loading and delivery operations.

This civil servant was an admirable representative of the community and of ordinary consumers: of the interests of the community at large. He subjected all the evidence to a most searching analysis. What precisely happened? When the Fianna Fáil Government came back into power it was suddenly discovered, for reasons not stated, that this civil servant, whom I have not named, was now vitally necessary back in the Department from which he came. He was swiftly replaced. To me, that is disquieting. I would regard it as proof, however, that the Prices Advisory Body could be exceedingly useful— and also, perhaps, of the fact that certain interests, having the Minister's ear, could put suggestions to him, and that over-zealous public servants could be removed from positions where they are annoying certain private interests, vested interests, by their investigation, by their knowledge, but all of which, I submit, was highly useful to the public. Nevertheless, as I say, despite this kind of defect this is a useful body.

Dr. ffrench O'Carroll

Has the Senator any information or any evidence to support the suggestion that this useful member of the Prices Advisory Body was removed because of representations by persons whose interests were being affected by the useful work he was doing in regard to consumer prices?

An Cathaoirleach

I was just wondering that myself.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I suggested —I believe it was publicly suggested at the time indeed—that it was a disquieting feature if the removal——

Mr. Hawkins

The Senator should substantiate the charge, if he is going to proceed.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Sheehy Skeffington is in possession.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I think, if I am to be interrupted, I should have a chance to reply to one question before being interrupted again by another Senator. As I was saying, it was disquieting to me that this most effective and useful individual member of the Prices Advisory Body was found useful back in the Department from which he came at that time, when, in my submission, from the point of view of the community, he was doing far more useful and important work as a member of the Prices Advisory Body.

I note with regret, too, that there has been a change of personnel on the Fair Trade Commission. This change may have been made at the request of the chairman himself. But in relation to the outgoing chairman, I should like to say that I think he has served the public well by the manner in which he conducted the investigations, and put questions, which occasionally aroused great cries of protest from representatives of the various interests before the commission. He put questions to them which I believe were necessary from the point of view of the public. I think that his departure from the chair of that body should not be allowed to go by without saluting the services he has rendered to the public in initiating the series of investigations held by the Fair Trade Commission.

In relation to the Prices Advisory Body I have tried to demonstrate that, despite the defects I have mentioned, it is a most useful body. I would like to suggest that it should be used more, and that its reports should be made public after consideration by the Minister.

I should like to suggest furthermore that it should more frequently take the initiative itself in considering the justifiability of certain price levels, and I think it should resist rather more vigorously attempts by private concerns to conceal figures from the public which they find it "awkward" to reveal. Senator Fearon has suggested that it would be a good idea if the Prices Advisory Body had somebody like a public relations officer. I think that would be sound, because I think it is very much in need of interpretation to the public and the Press, if its activities are to be appreciated at their full worth. Similarly, in relation to the Prices Advisory Body, I would like to feel that the whole Seanad is with me when I say that the members of the Prices Advisory Body, who are zealous in their investigations, should be given every encouragement to conduct their investigations wholeheartedly. However, I would say in relation to the prices problem that the Prices Advisory Body is not enough. The apparatus is useful, but it is not sufficient.

In relation to the general prices situation, I would suggest that it is true in general to say that we cannot materially affect import prices, though even there it is possible by bulk buying, as in the case of tea, to get a better bargain for the country than would be got by individual, inter-competing private merchants. On this question of tea I would like to say most emphatically that I believe the Government policy has been right. I believe it would have been right, even if there had not been the drop in the price of tea that has taken place recently, but it has been proved to be doubly right by the fact that the price of tea is steadily coming down. The basis, as I see it, for the Government's action in this regard, is the fact that when basic cost prices are fluctuating for any commodity, if the retail price is allowed to rise it takes an extraordinarily long time to come down again. The Government allowed Tea Importers to work on an overdraft, guaranteed by the Government and I think that provides that, whatever rise becomes necessary in relation to the price of tea over the period of the next few years, the impact of that rise as a whole will be spread over a period of several years, and will not be allowed to hit the public with the full force of an immediate rise, in the absence of any guarantee of an immediate retail price drop when world prices fall.

Therefore, I think we would be blind if we did not recognise that the Government policy was justified and intelligent, because of the fact that when various world prices go up, retail prices go up very quickly here, but when world prices come down, the retail drop is a very slow one. Senator Cogan praised Tea Importers, and I think he praised them rightly, for their intelligent anticipation of the tea situation and for their bulk-buying on behalf of the community. As a result, there was, very strikingly, a far better price here than in Great Britain, where they rely to a great extent on private enterprise. But Senator Cogan failed to mention the fact that it was in the mind of the previous Minister —the present Minister's predecessor— to abolish Tea Importers. I think that could be confirmed by the Minister to-night. When Senator Cogan takes credit for the setting up of Tea Importers by Fianna Fáil he is right, but he should not conceal the fact that it was apparently in the mind of the outgoing Government to abolish it. That would have been regrettable and the Minister is to be congratulated on his decision to keep Tea Importers in existence.

In relation, therefore, to the price of imports, we cannot do more than limit the effects of import prices—of import price increases—but we can do much more, I suggest, in relation to home prices—the prices of things mainly or wholly produced here. We can do more about home production costs and more about home distribution costs. We have in this country a number of rings and semi-monopolies —monopolies that do not accept the name of monopolies but which are, in fact, rings which monopolise certain products and put pressure on certain manufacturers not to supply wholesalers and retailers unless there is compliance with certain price conditions. We have organised resale price maintenance, which has undoubtedly resulted, I suggest, in price inflation in this country. That sort of thing, in my contention, should not be tolerated by the Government. I would regard it as a form of gentlemanly banditry, holding the community to ransom for the sake of organised sectional interests.

I would like to see the Minister or, better still, the Prices Advisory Body under his instruction, examining fully Irish production costs, Irish middle-men's methods and practices, Irish retailers' methods and practices. I suggest that if a real investigation of these matters were to be carried out, the results would be startling, and would enable a quite appreciable reduction to be made in the prices of many things. I shall quote one example. I have here two small bills from two different firms, one a London firm, the other a Dublin firm. The bills are for commodities supplied in relation to a prescription which was the same—it was a medical one, and the two products supplied are identical in both cases. The bills relate to two specific items. The first was bought in Boots, in London, for 3/6 and the same item was paid for to a Dublin firm at the rate of 6/6. It was the same quantity of the same article. The second article was paid for in Boots at 8/6 and the same article in Dublin was charged for at the rate of £1 11s. 6d. instead of 8/6.

I realise, of course, that in relation to prescriptions, the chemists are exceedingly shy. They do not like one to go behind the iron curtain of the prescription window or counter. In relation to public health, we are told of the delicate patient-doctor relationship, which, of course, I respect; but apparently the relationship between the consumer of pharmaceutical goods and the chemists is one of even greater delicacy, and does not so far even permit of the Fair Trade Commission's going into costings there.

In that regard, I should like to congratulate the Minister for a recent action of his which seems to me to set a headline for future action, which could very profitably be extended to other fields. I refer to the Minister's decision to allow a certain wholesaler to import certain products from England, duty free, when it became apparent to the Minister that this wholesaler was being boycotted because he was not prepared to confine the distribution of these goods to retailers who would maintain a high retail price.

I think that that action of the Minister has gone by without sufficient comment. The Minister simply said: "If these people are going to boycott this wholesaler because he will not ‘play ball' with them, then I will remove the protective duty barrier for this product in relation to this particular wholesaler". The Minister took swift, effective, courageous and imaginative action. I would put it to the Minister that that is precisely the kind of action that might be considered in relation to other highly priced commodities in this country, where the high price is due to an organisation for the maintenance of the retail price, by whatever associations it may be.

We have in this country a number of protected industries. I am in favour of the policy which encourages industry in this country. I am in favour of a tariff system which permits Irish industry to grow up. Behind such tariff barriers we have had growing up in this country a number of most praiseworthy industries. I would suggest that the most difficult period for such industries is the first few years—the first five years, or perhaps the first ten years. Obviously, to start such an industry requires skill, planning, intelligence and so forth. I suggest, therefore, that the amount of protection necessary during those first years, during the inaugural years, must necessarily be appreciably higher than the amount of protection that will be necessary once these industries have been effectively got going. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that he consider, under the powers vested in him by this Bill, or when he is proposing future tariffs and duties, a sliding scale whereby industries which have enjoyed a degree of protection over an initial period might have that protection not removed but gradually reduced, as a recognition of the fact that an industry, having got under way, has got over the most difficult point in its career. If, moreover, he finds that there are industries sheltering behind a tariff wall and insisting that the prices of retail commodities are maintained, I think the Minister should warn such industries that the protection given to them by the State is not unconditional.

I should like again to refer to an example which came before the public at one of the sittings of the Prices Advisory Body. An application was made to the Prices Advisory Body by the Irish Housewives' Association to reduce the price of perambulators. Perambulators may be regarded possibly as somewhat of a joke, until the time comes when you set out to buy one. It was proved in evidence before the Prices Advisory Body that the retailers' association in relation to this trade were insisting that all retailers of perambulators in this country should take a 50 per cent. gross profit. Further, it became apparent that the duty on imported English prams was precisely 50 per cent. It was also proved in evidence that one particular retailer had been deprived of supplies by the three Irish manufacturers of perambulators under "persuasion" from the retailers' association unless this particular trader would agree to take a 50 per cent. profit, when, in fact, she stated she was prepared to be content with 33?. It was submitted privately in letters, which were put before the Prices Advisory Body, to the then Minister by that trader, that the Minister might perhaps permit this single trader to import some of the English prams free of duty, or at a reduced duty rate. The then Minister considered that that was not feasible. That is why I hail the present Minister's action in the incident I have mentioned, in removing this protective barrier, when he thinks people are abusing the privileges which they enjoy under State protection.

With relation to the Fair Trade Commission, which has done and is doing useful work, I should like to say something—it arises also on what I have been saying about resale price maintenance—about the general attitude of certain associations towards so called "cut-price" shops. I suggest that the cut-price shop—which is subject to the same health regulations as any other shop in this city—is doing a public service. I would contrast it, I am afraid, with shops which are maintaining higher and frequently wholly artificial prices. I would contrast it most favourably with them. Why is it that we can have cut-price shops in relation to certain commodities? I suggest the reason is that the profit margin demanded by many of our retailers is so high that it leaves the way wide open for somebody else to come in and cut that profit margin in half, and still do exceedingly well though selling much cheaper to the public. It is, in other words, the large profit margin insisted upon by some trades that permits the incidence of these competitive price shops.

We used to be told in the olden days that "competition is the life of trade". It is now the thing that our traders are apparently most terrified of. I would ask the Seanad to consider just what amount of retailers' profit margin can be allowed for out of the money paid, for instance, to an unemployed man with a wife and two children who receives 56/- a week. How much of that can he allow to go into the profit margin of a retail grocer who is keeping prices artificially high? Or how much of the 21/6 a week which the old age pensioner receives can we regard as a legitimate and fair contribution to the profit margins of grocers or other traders who are keeping prices artificially high? I suggest that the so-called "cut-price" shops—which I would call "fair-price" or "competitive-price" shops—are doing a public service to the people with low earnings, and to people who have to live on the miserably small allowances which we as a State give to them. I suggest, furthermore, that the multiplicity of shops in certain trades is, again, a symptom of the overgenerous profit margins granted to these traders by their own associations. These people are doing very nicely, and the fact that we have far too many grocery and chemist shops is an illustration of the fact that their profit margins are inflated.

We hear a good deal on various occasions about private enterprise. I notice in this country that private enterprise has an ambivalent attitude towards State interference. Too many people in this country, I suggest, are using State protection to help them to hit the Irish consumer hard, but those same people cry out to heaven at the least suggestion that the State should insist upon fair play for the consumer, through free competition.

I read with some amazement the other day an official demand by R.G.D.A.T.A. that the control of bacon prices should be removed and the price of bacon be allowed "to find its own level". "To find its own level"! That seemed to me to be an example of infernal nerve on the part of an association whose main object is to prevent prices from doing anything of the kind, whose main object is to maintain an artificial price level, and to cry out in horror at the thought of prices being allowed really to find their own level through free competition. That then is the general situation, I suggest, in relation to prices here. I suggest that our Government has not been sufficiently vigorous in pursuing a policy to remove such anomalies. That is the general position, in which too many of the privileged sections of the community are feather-bedded by State protection, and allowed with virtual impunity to extract grossly inflated profits from the ordinary consumer.

The real solution, of course, a Chathaoirligh, for Irish industry and commerce is that indicated, but I am afraid rejected, by Senator Ó Buachalla, that is, of a planned economy, a socialist economy, a cooperative economy, in which we would plan production and distribution, not for private greed but for public need, and when all the citizens, irrespective of their importance, their wealth, or their political prominence, would gain the advantage of effective State protection, at least in relation to the price of all the everyday necessaries of life. But that, of course, would be taking a step upon the path towards James Connolly's ideal of a socialist republic in Ireland. His phrase as far back as 1897 was this—and I submit it to the attention of the Seanad:

"If you could remove the English Army to-morrow and hoist the Green Flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organisation of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain."

I realise that even an Irish Labour Minister would be very frightened at the thought of a socialist solution for our problems—yet in my opinion that solution is the only solution. That is the reason why successive Governments in this country have failed to grapple with the real problems of production and distribution. That is why they remain accusing each other across the floor of the House and proving, each of them, when they are in power, that they are not capable of controlling the "economic forces," against which Deputy Lemass said any Government would be powerless.

Nevertheless, I believe that that solution will come, and I want to terminate with a declaration that I believe that such a solution will come when the ordinary people of this country realise that it is not by tinkering about with the capitalist machine—the private profit system— that either side will solve our price problems, or indeed our economic and social problems in general, but by scrapping that machine. I would suggest that we were not always quite so frightened in this country of radical social change, and I would like to give you just one more quotation from another Irish leader. He said this:

"If we fail to make the radical changes obviously necessary, if we fail to organise our economic life deliberately and purposely to provide as its first object for the fundamental needs of all our citizens, so that everyone may at least be reasonably housed, clothed and fed, we shall be failing in our duty, and failing cruelly and disastrously."

That was said by Mr. de Valera in Geneva in September 1932. I personally subscribe wholeheartedly to that to-day, and I conclude by expressing my regret that these "radical changes" still in Ireland to-day remain to be made.

Mr. O'Gorman

This discussion on the Supplies and Services Bill has wandered up many avenues. Having listened to the debate for the last four hours, it seems to me that the net result comes to this one fact—it is a case of being for or against the Government. A few speakers have shot off at tangents, like Senator Sheehy Skeffington, to whom we all listened with rapt attention, though I am afraid the ideas given expression to by him are above some of us, at the moment at any rate. However, time will tell whether the views he has given voice to in the House to-night will ever operate in this country.

This debate has developed into a conflict between those on the Government side and those on the Opposition side. I have been listening to it attentively and I was somewhat surprised at a man whom I have known for a considerable number of years, Senator Liam Ó Buachalla of Galway, who, I had always a feeling, was a very sound type of man. I remember him as chairman of a body of which I was a member 15 or 20 years ago. Encircled in the velvet glove which he wore to-night, he had a knuckleduster. That knuckleduster was aimed at one Party and one Party alone, the Party which I have the honour to represent here in Seanad Éireann. It is rather strange to me that, whatever Bills were brought in by the inter-Party Government in the past seven or eight months since they assumed office—or during the three and a quarter years they occupied office in the years 1948 to 1951—never one word of commendation or eulogy or encomium was ever given to the Government for them. It is sufficient for the Opposition that it comes from the Government side to bring forth condemnation.

Senator Ó Buachalla seems to be rather worried about Fine Gael. If my memory serves me correctly—it is about three hours since he spoke—he stated that he had lost all respect for the Fine Gael Party. As far as Fine Gael is concerned, that does not worry us very much, with all due respect to the learned Senator. It is sufficient for us to know that the country thinks somewhat differently and has proved it. We are not worried as to what the learned Senator thinks of us.

This discussion has wandered up many avenues. I will be very brief, because we have had some very distinguished speakers here to-night who have spoken on many subjects. I will confine myself to a few—and perhaps I may go back to the last election. Opposition speakers stated that we promised, on every platform and outside every church gate, to reduce the cost of living. We did not—I say that emphatically. We promised that, if returned to power, we would do our very best to reduce the cost of living. That is a different thing. We realise that we are living in a very turbulent world where economic conditions are in a bit of a whirl and that no matter what Government may be in power, even if that Government had the wisdom of various Solomons, they could not do much more than the Government which has been functioning since last June has done. They hurl across at us now: "What have you done for the seven or eight months you are in office?" I claim we have done a considerable amount. We, at any rate, have done our best to keep the cost-of-living index static. It had been rising up to the time that Fianna Fáil left office.

As one who comes from the country and travels around a good deal, I can very definitely say that the ordinary man and woman one meets, unless they are biassed, must and do admit that conditions in the country to-day were never more prosperous or political conditions more peaceful. Everyone seems to be satisfied, and when we get the opportunity we will fulfil the promises which we indicated seven or eight months ago.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

You said a moment ago that you had made no promises.

Mr. O'Gorman

We never said that. We came into office last year. We have an inter-Party Government now, and we have the Opposition and I hope they are going to remain where they are. In a derogatory kind of way, they have described this Government as a Coalition. I think it is a grand thing to be a member of an inter-Party Government in which you have every section of the people represented. You have the professional man, the lawyer, the businessman, the worker and the farmer. They are all together under the one banner of inter-Party.

At the other side of the House there is nothing but the Fianna Fáil bunch which has been strengthened by some people who, a few years ago, were nearly joining up with us but we would not take them in. I think the people opposite realise—it is the grievance they have—that the country is so happy under this Government. Consequently, the Opposition are dissatisfied and have reason to be downhearted.

I knock around the country a good deal and from meeting the people I am candidly of the opinion that Fianna Fáil—in fact, I would not mind making a bet about it and feel that I would be safe in offering 5 to 1—will never be the Government of this country again. Any reasonable man or woman will admit that this Government is doing a good job. In support of that, I would like to point to the great success of the flotation of the last national loan by the present Minister for Finance. He was able to do so at a rate of interest far less than that offered by his predecessor over the previous three or four years. The present Minister floated his loan which, by the way, was over-subscribed, at 4¼ per cent. That surely was a great act of faith by the people of the country in the stability of this Government.

During its short term of office, this Government has indicated that the rampant expenditure which went on under their predecessors must cease. Every man in the country, no matter what his political affiliations are, realises that during the previous eight or ten years this country had been living beyond its means. Those of us who are in business realise only too well that if the professional man, the businessman or anyone else is living beyond his means the calamitous result of bankruptcy is awaiting him. This Government had the courage to say to the people, to the Dáil and to the Seanad that excessive expenditure must stop. The Book of Estimates issued within the past week indicates that the Estimates have been reduced by close on £3,000,000. The people are pleased to see that. After all, whether we are in Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann it is our duty to remember that it is the people's money, and not our own, that we are spending.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator will have an opportunity of dealing with that matter next week when the Central Fund Bill is before the House.

Mr. O'Gorman

It is no harm to mention in time what the people are expecting. I do not propose to detain the House much longer as I know there are other members who wish to speak. I would like to say to the Opposition: "Cheer up! There is no reason for being too gloomy; we have a great little country." The only thing that I see wrong with it is that we have too many professional politicians. I think there are too many who fit into that category. We have them here— they are in every country in the world. I would advise them to clear out and give the people a chance of making a living for themselves in their own way.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington made a number of statements with which I certainly would not agree. He suggested, for example, that the Minister should inquire more closely into the operations of various business concerns. I think there is a touch of Stalinism about that statement. The competition amongst business people at the present time is severe enough without any inquiries such as the Senator has suggested. The businessman to-day is no longer in the happy position of being able to sell an article by putting it in the window. Unless he gives value he will not be able to sell it. I sincerely hope that some of the sentiments expressed by the Senator will never be adopted in this country.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

What about resale price maintenance?

Mr. O'Gorman

Business people are in quite a different position from professional men. They have to live and carry on business on the side of the street, and no matter what line they are in there is keen competition. Unless they give good value they are not going to succeed. The professional man is not subject to that kind of competition.

Since this Government came into power they have been giving good service to the people. I have no doubt that when the people again get the opportunity in four years' time, this Government will get a unanimous verdict from them on the grounds that they did their job well during their term of office. The Government is comprised of members of all Parties, and I have no doubt that when the time comes the people will again show their confidence in them.

Mr. Murphy

I had no intention whatever of intervening in this debate, but there are two corrections which I would like to make and which, as a trade unionist, I could not allow to pass. We had, first of all, the extraordinary interpretation that Senator Cogan put on certain statistics published in the Irish Statistical Survey for 1953. If we turn to page 35 of that book, and look at diagram nine to which Senator Cogan originally drew our attention, we will see that there is a yawning gap between the cost of living and industrial earnings from 1939 to 1948. I need not tell the House that Fianna Fáil were in power at the time that the cost of living was on top. It was not until 1948 that industrial earnings caught up on the cost of living, passed it out and kept increasing. We then see on the graph that the cost of living suddenly begins to climb, and, again, we are reminded that Fianna Fáil have returned to power. That is the position, and I should hate to think that anybody would have given the impression that the opposite was the case—that it was as Senator Cogan had stated here this afternoon.

That is my first point of correction. Before I leave this question of industrial earnings, and in case the industrialists around me who have already been considerably ruffled by Senator Sheehy Skeffington should be complacent about it, I would like to remind Senators that industrial earnings are not accepted by the trade union movement as a proper measurement. It simply deals with earnings in transportable goods industries, and it is a fact that rates of pay have not yet been increased by the same percentage as has the cost of living since 1939; in other words, there is still a gap to be closed to recover the 1939 position.

The second point of correction is in regard to Senator Sheehy Skeffington's statement that Senator Hickey advocated the scrapping of the Prices Advisory Body. I think the Senator was mistaken. What Senator Hickey was referring to, so far as I can recall, was the Prices Section of the Department of Industry, and I am sure that Senator Sheehy Skeffington has read the debates in the Dáil and appreciates and understands the Labour Party view with regard to the Prices Advisory Body. I think he does because he has stated it here very adequately and competently to-night.

Mr. L'Estrange

The empty benches on the other side show us that the Fianna Fáil Party have a very poor case to make against the Government. This debate has centred around the cost of living and promises which were supposed to have been made by the Parties forming the present Government. Senator Cogan said that Fine Gael made promises which they had no intention of fulfilling in order to get into power. I want to tell the Senator that there is one big difference between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, in that Fine Gael has always put this country first and Party and personal affiliations after, and will continue to do so in the future, whereas Fianna Fáil put their Party first and the country after.

Senator Cogan said that it was wrong for any Party to get into power on false promises and by fooling the Irish people. I want to say that no Party has fooled the Irish people more often than the Fianna Fáil Party. After the general election of 1951—and remember that it was not in the heat of a general election or off a political platform— the Fianna Fáil Party issued a pamphlet. At the time, they were not able to form a Government on their own and they were trying to get the help and support of Independents. They published in the daily papers a 17-point programme, signed by no less a person than Eamon de Valera, and point 15 of that programme was the maintenance of subsidies and reduction of the cost of living.

If Senator Cogan wants to make inquiries, he will find that, at that time, the loaf was only 6½d., and, nine months after Fianna Fáil had made that solemn promise, it went up to 9½d., an increase of 3d. Flour increased from 2/8 to 4/9½, an increase of 2/1½ per stone; butter increased from 2/10 to 4/-, an increase of 1/2 per lb; sugar increased from 4d. to 7d., an increase of 3d. per lb; tea increased from 2/8 to 5/6, an increase of 2/10 per lb; cigarettes went up from 1/8 to 2/4, and the pint from 11d. to 1/3. During that election, Deputy MacEntee, speaking in O'Connell Street on the eve of the election, stated that the Fine Gael people were saying that, if Fianna Fáil were returned to power, they would reimpose the taxes on beer and spirits which they had imposed in 1947. He told the people of Dublin and of the country that they had no intention of reimposing those taxes, but yet, in nine short months, they had broken their solemn undertaking to the Irish people.

Remember that all those increases were due to deliberate action on the part of Fianna Fáil because every article I have named there—I have left out petrol and other commodities—was produced here at home in Ireland. The Fianna Fáil Party cannot state that outside interference had anything to do with those increases.

Senator Cogan also stated that in the last three months of the inter-Party Government the cost of living went up by nine points. I think that, when Senators speak in this House, they should at least give facts. The cost of living did not go up by nine points in the last three months of the inter-Party Government. He further stated that the inter-Party Government did nothing about it. The cost of living went up nine points from 1948 to 1951 during the three years of the inter-Party Government. When the inter-Party Government took office in 1948 the cost of living stood at 100 points and when they left office in 1951 the cost of living stood at 109. During that period the Korean war had started and import prices were at their peak. Import prices had reached the figure of 324 and in September, 1951, they had dropped.

When Fianna Fáil came into power the cost of living stood at 109 and when they were going out of office in 1954 it stood at 124, an increase of 15 points, despite the fact that import prices had decreased from the figure of 324 in September, 1951, to 289.5 last May. Senator Cogan to-day spoke about a horror document. Here is the document that was used by the Fine Gael Party during the last general election and if Senator Cogan wants to look at that he will see that the prices prevailing in 1954 are compared with the prices prevailing in 1951. Under these prices it is stated that all these rises in prices were due to deliberate action of the then Government. It asks the people to vote Fine Gael and change the Government but there is no promise or any undertaking given in that document.

The Irish people were not fooled in any way. I happened to be on a platform in Mullingar and also on one in Athlone when the present Taoiseach, then Deputy J.A. Costello, was speaking and he was challenged by Deputy Lemass in Athlone about prices. The present Taoiseach got up and told the people of Athlone—his speech appeared in the daily papers the following day—that they were making no promises; that they would do their best. He said that if given the time and the opportunity they would rule this country well and fairly as they ruled it from 1948 to 1950-51.

Senator Cogan spoke about broken promises and went back to the year 1932. That is, perhaps, going back a long way, but still I remember at that time a poster which was displayed all over this country which was headed: Fianna Fáil have a plan for you. There was set down there a list of their promises. I will briefly run through their promises and the House will see how many of the promises that were made at that time were kept by the Fianna Fáil Party.

The first promise they made was to abolish the Border. The second promise was to restore the Irish language. The third promise was to end emigration. Some of their speakers said that not only would they end emigration, but they would bring back the hundreds of thousands that had emigrated since the Cumann na nGaedheal Party came into power in 1922, but the House knows that such was not the case. They also told us that they would end unemployment. At that time there were 70,000 or 80,000 unemployed in this country, unfortunately, but within less than two short years after that, in 1934, there were over 150,000 people unemployed in this country and the Fianna Fáil Party had to dole out free beef to them to try to keep them alive.

Another promise of theirs was that they would give complete derating to the farmers. Nobody can deny that the farmers of Ireland foolishly enough voted for them at that time on account of that promise, but we never got the derating. They told us they would raise the standards of living of the farmers. True enough, in 1932, due to a world depression, the farmers were finding it hard to make ends meet, but in two years afterwards we know what was meted out to them. The Broy Harriers were going round to their places and in my own county they took the last cow from a poor widow woman. That was the Party that was to raise the standard of living of the farmer!

I think quite a number of varied points were raised in this debate and the Minister has made a note of them. I think he would be anxious to conclude. I should like to know if it would be possible to let the Minister in to conclude the debate if not now then not later than 9 o'clock.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

I think we should let the Minister in because it is fairly late and several members are present in the House to listen to him.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Norton)

There has been a lengthy discussion on this Bill and it has taken the character somewhat of the kind of discussion which usually takes place on the Central Fund Bill or the Appropriation Bill. Certainly the discussion has not been kept within any very narrow confines. In fact, the whole question of Government policy has been raised by the many Senators who spoke on the Bill. I could not help admiring the audacity of some of the Senators who spoke here to-day because it seemed to me that the attitude of some of those Senators—that is, those who sit on the benches over there—was: "In 1947 we introduced a Supplementary Budget and we increased the prices of certain commodities. You, in the inter-Party Government, in 1948, repealed that Supplementary Budget and brought these prices down to their original level." Because we did that in 1948, reversed the Fianna Fáil policy of 1947, we are now being asked again in 1955 to reverse the high prices of the last Fianna Fáil Government as exemplified in their 1952 Budget. I think it is a great compliment to the inter-Party Government that we should be expected to do these things; and apparently the only hope the Fianna Fáil Party see of getting prices brought down is by appealing to the inter-Party Government to undo what the Fianna Fáil Government did in its ravening attack on the food subsidies in 1952.

But, while I take it as a tribute to the inter-Party Government, to its intelligence and its capabilities, it would be a mistake at the same time to leave this House under the impression that the inter-Party Government can perform miracles in a matter of nine months. We have done certain things in the last nine months, and I will come to those in a minute, but to expect us in a period of nine months to undo the appalling harm that was done to the whole domestic fabric of the State by the slashing of the food subsidies in 1952, and to expect all that within a period of nine months is, while a great tribute to the inter-Party Government, really expecting the impossible in the circumstances in which we find ourselves to-day.

We were told in this debate that we made promises and that we should keep those promises. Political brazenness is going pretty far when we are asked by the Fianna Fáil Party to keep our promises. Senator S.T. Ruane put his finger on two points. What about the promises made by the Fianna Fáil Party to scour the cities of America and bring back all the emigrants to do all the work Fianna Fáil was going to make available for them? What about the promises made by the former Taoiseach that he would end unemployment here? What about the declaration made by him that unemployment was easier to solve here than in any country in the world? What about the declaration made by the former Taoiseach that he would endeavour to solve the unemployment problem here within the present system but that, if he could not do it within the present system, he would go outside the present system—but one thing certainly would happen—he would solve the problem of unemployment.

Were not all these promises made by the Fianna Fáil Party and is it not somewhat ironical that the Party which made these promises should now chide the inter-Party Government for not redeeming all its promises within nine months, although the same Opposition Party knows that this Government will remain in office for four or five years and during that period will apply itself to the task of honouring the promises it made to the people at the recent election.

Reference has been made in this debate to the fact that the Government has held tea prices. We have held the level of tea prices. We have held tea prices at their existing level because we realise that any substantial rise in the price of tea, which would be justified by reference to the present purchase price of tea in the gardens or at the auctions, would have a very serious impact on the cost of living and might well act as a fertilising influence setting in motion another movement for an increase in wages, which, in its turn, might bring a still higher level of prices without giving to the workers concerned corresponding purchasing facilities in the form of increased wages. We held the price of tea at a steady level because we were anxious to keep price stability and to put a ceiling, if we could, on prices, in an endeavour to get them down progressively and, at all events, to hold them at their present level so as not to increase the price impact on the domestic economy of our people. I could well imagine the howl that would go up from the Fianna Fáil supporters if we had increased the price of tea. Because we did not increase the price of tea and because we held the price of tea, we are being chided now with the fact that we did it in this unusual way. Had we increased the price of tea we would have been told that we had broken our promise to the people so that, in the eyes of both Fianna Fáil Senators and Deputies, we sin if we hold the price of tea at its present level—that has been a subject of criticism in the Dáil—and we would equally have sinned if we had increased the price of tea.

What can one do when dealing with a mentality of that kind? It is, of course, quite clear to me what is wrong. The Fianna Fáil Party is bitterly annoyed because we did not increase the price of tea. If we had increased the price of tea the welkin would have rung outside every church gate on Sunday morning in the last few months and the crossroads would have seen many an interesting gathering listening to a catalogue of the crimes committed by the inter-Party Government.

Fianna Fáil cannot make any complaint now against the inter-Party Government in relation to tea prices, for tea prices have been held. I want to put a question to the Fianna Fáil Senators here. Maybe I shall get from them the answer I could not get from the Fianna Fáil Deputies. What would the Fianna Fáil Party have done if they had been in office when tea prices were rising? I will assert now that they would have allowed the price of tea to go up. I will assert now that Fianna Fáil would never have subsidised the price of tea; neither would they have faced up to the situation in which holding the price of tea would be paid for by instalments at a later date. Quite clearly Fianna Fáil would do nothing as far as subsidies were concerned. In that connection, the quotation I am about to give represents the biblical declaration of the former Minister for Finance on the question of subsidies. Referring to subsidies he said:—

"The whole system is a wasteful and cumbersome means of conferring an indeterminate net benefit on some class only of consumers. Because of the rigid controls that go with it, it tends to stifle enterprise and it fosters inefficiency in industry and trade because there is no incentive to reduce costs when they can be passed on to the taxpayer. But for the subsidies, rationing, with all the inconvenience and waste of effort which it entails, could be dropped."

There is the declaration of a Party which, no matter what happens to price levels, clearly would not contemplate a resort to subsidies as a means of keeping prices at a reasonable level, much less as a means of bringing prices down.

We have told Tea Importers to carry on by overdraft the cost of keeping tea at its present level. We did that because we believed that the tea situation in the world at the moment is a situation which can probably be mastered in time by an increase in tea output from the tea-producing countries. We decided, therefore, that Tea Importers should be allowed to carry the cost of maintaining the tea price by means of an overdraft and, in doing that, we did no more than has been done in respect of fuel since 1940. Fuel supplies have been carried on an overdraft every year since 1940. Why we could not, therefore, do with tea what we have been doing with fuel for 15 years is something which nobody on the Fianna Fáil Benches would explain to me in the Dáil.

We have been chided here and in the Dáil with our record in respect of prices. What is the Fianna Fáil record? When we went out of office in May, 1951, the cost-of-living index figure was 109. It was at that level when Fianna Fáil took over in May, 1951. When they left office in June, 1954, the cost-of-living index figure was 124. It had risen by 15 points in the three years. One would imagine that during those three years Fianna Fáil had pushed down the cost of living. In fact, as these three figures show, the cost of living increased by 15 points during Fianna Fáil's three years of office. I put to Fianna Fáil Senators, in all humility, do they think they are quite justified in expecting us to produce miracles in the matter of price levels in nine months when, in three years, their record is that they allowed the cost of living to increase from an index figure of 109 to an index figure of 124?

When we are asked about keeping promises, it is interesting to refer to the way Fianna Fáil keeps promises. I remember reading the 17 points declaration made by the Fianna Fáil Party. In that declaration they said:

"It is the policy of Fianna Fáil to maintain food subsidies, to control the price of essential foodstuffs and operate an efficient system of price regulation for all necessary and scarce commodities."

That is a solemn declaration of what Fianna Fáil intended to do with prices. They intended to maintain the food subsidies; they intended to maintain effective control over the cost of living. That was the promise they made in June, 1951. The way in which they controlled the cost of living was to allow it to go up by 15 points. The way in which they maintained the food subsidies was to slash them, in 1952, to the extent that they saved £2,400,000 in subsidies on tea, £3,000,000 in subsidies on butter, and £3,600,000 in subsidies on flour and wheaten meal. So that the way in which they maintained the food subsidies, which they promised to do in 1951, was to slash the food subsidies to the extent of £9,000,000 per year, 12 months after they had made the promise.

Is a Party with a record of that kind just the Party specially equipped or predestined to put to the inter-Party Government a question as to when the inter-Party Government will implement its programme in full?

What we have done in a short period is something that Fianna Fáil would never have done. I assert that if Fianna Fáil had been in office and tea prices rose as they did here in the past six months, the people to-day would be paying approximately 3/- per lb. more for tea than they are paying at the present time. Our people, in this country, thanks to the inter-Party Government, are now buying tea at the lowest price at which tea is sold in any country in the world, lower than in the Six Counties, lower than in Britain, substantially lower than in any other country in Europe. If Fianna Fáil were in office they would be paying 3/- per lb. more for tea for the privilege of having a Fianna Fáil Government. I think we are entitled to take credit for that. I think we are entitled to say to the people: "We held tea prices because of the fact that we do not want an increase in prices to impact on your domestic budget to your disadvantage."

In respect of butter, within two months of taking office, we reduced the price of butter by 5d. a lb. It will cost nearly £2,000,000 in subsidies this year to bring the price of butter down by that 5d. per lb. Is it not perfectly true that if Fianna Fáil were in office to-day the people would be paying 4/2 per lb. for butter which they are now getting from an inter-Party Government at 3/9 per lb.?

Put these two things alone together —butter down by 5d. per lb., tea held at a level 3/- below what the economic charge should be—and I think you have a fair indication, not only of the direction in which the Government is seeking to go, but a fair indication that the Government is intent, so far as it possibly can, on implementing the promise which was made to the people following the recent general election. What was the promise? I want to quote it because I take pride in the promise and I take further pride in my efforts, as far as I am concerned, to try to redeem the promise which was made to the people. Here is the Government's declaration of policy issued to the Press on the 31st May:—

"Recognising that the main issue in the election was the issue of prices, the Parties forming the Government are determined to reduce the cost of living in relation to the people's incomes and, in particular, to effect a reduction in the prices of essential foodstuffs in relation to the people's capacity. It is proposed to reduce the price of butter in the near future. A detailed announcement of the Government's proposal will be made in the course of the next fortnight."

That is the policy of the inter-Party Government. That is the policy to which this Government is committed. By holding tea at its present level and by reducing the price of butter, we have already given clear evidence of our determination to travel that road and, so far as the Government is concerned, it will strive by every means in its power to redeem the promise which was there made to the people.

Is there anything wrong with attempting to implement a promise of that kind? Is there anything wrong in setting down in black and white a policy or a programme for which you stand and towards the implementation of which you will work? Is it not better to set before your eyes objectives of that kind and to do your best to carry them out rather than to engage, as the Fianna Fáil Party did, in a cynical repudiation, deliberately undertaken when they slashed the subsidies in 1952, of the promise which they had solemnly made to the people 12 months before that?

If we fail to bring down prices, it will not be for want of effort on our part. If we fail to maintain prices it will be because, either through world circumstances or domestic circumstances, forces may operate which will prevent the attainment of that ideal. But there is no reason why you should not have an ideal and there is no reason why you should not have an objective. You certainly ought not to put yourself in a position of refusing to have either merely because there are difficulties in the way, for the time being, of accomplishing that on which you have set your mind or your heart.

As I said in the Dáil and as I say here in the Seanad, while this Government will strive to implement the promise which was made and to keep to the programme to which it has set its hand, if it is not possible, because of a variety of circumstances, to achieve that programme in full, I think the understanding Irish people will be prepared to listen to the explanations as to the difficulties. I, personally, in any case, would prefer to go back to the people and say: "Look at what we have done," and give them a list of our achievements, tell them in what respect we fell short of redeeming in full the programme which we had set before ourselves. I am quite sure that, if we can give the people an adequate account of our stewardship in the field of our endeavours on prices and our endeavours in respect of unemployment and our endeavours to provide more employment, the Irish people will understand us and give us a continued mandate to carry on still further in an effort to achieve a policy in accord with our aims and aspirations, a policy which is calculated to give them the prosperity that has eluded them for so long.

I know, of course, in our efforts in this field we will have the cheap catcalls of the market place and the sneers of people who had hoped we would fail merely because of the political disadvantage which would accrue to them if we were successful, but I do not think that is a reason why we should be deterred from pursuing a policy which I believe in substantial measure, at all events, is capable of achievement, and if we cannot achieve it all I would have no hesitation in telling the people what the difficulties were and letting them pass their own judgment having given them an account of the difficulties which we experienced. In any case I do not think the Irish people will blame us once we can convince them, as I think we can, that we really did our best to bring down prices for their benefit. If we are to have economic stability here we must have a stable price level, and after all, in the long run a level of prices is a relative term. A lower level of prices with inadequate wages could be a worse situation than a higher level of prices with better range of wages and if we cannot improve the standard of living of our people by bringing down prices while keeping our wages at the present level, then we must face the problem in another way. We must face the problem from the standpoint of increasing the people's incomes, and I see nothing wrong with the Government planning wisely and intelligently to put purchasing power into the hands of their people and to put more purchasing power into their hands. I would like, of course, to see that done to the accompaniment of greater volume of production, not merely industrial production but agricultural production as well because I believe it is only by putting increased purchasing power into the hands of our people that we can ever maintain a really high standard of prosperity and economic security.

Every intelligent and far-seeing businessman recognises that people must be given sufficient wages to purchase the commodities and the services which they have for sale. If people do not get sufficient wages there is stagnation, recession and bankruptcy and ruin for many people. I think if developments of that kind are to be combated it can only be done by stable price levels on one hand, matched by a reasonable wage and salary scales on the other. If it is not possible to adjust the level of prices to bring them within the capacity of the consuming public to pay, then the problem must be adjusted by adjusting the purchasing power while doing so in such a way as not to cause another price spiral. It is not an easy problem nor one that can be handled light-heartedly. It has to be planned; it may have to be planned in parts and operated in sections from time to time, but the very fact that it is difficult ought not to prevent us attempting the solution along those lines if it is not possible to find a solution by putting pressure on prices which will cause them to fall to a level within the capacity of our people to pay. At the same time I think that we could very well have as big a crisis by tumbling down prices as we could have with the soaring of prices. I never saw any worker who made any money out of a crash in prices: I never saw any businessman who got rich by prices tumbling down to bankruptcy level. Wherever you got that situation in the past you had queues outside the bankruptcy courts, and wherever that happened in the past you had large numbers of workers paid off from the factories and the factories closed not temporarily but, perhaps, permanently; sent into utter ruin because of the collapse of the prices system. I think any approach on these lines must be an intelligent, planned approach and it is a problem on which we must do a considerable amount of hard thinking in the future. Thinking on this problem might repay many times over the fullest possible examination of all the difficulties. Certainly I would prefer to see our legislative Houses devoting their time and attention to the study of this problem rather than dissipating energy on many of the barren, arid issues which have absorbed the attention of both Houses for all too long.

The question of price control machinery has been mentioned. The position of the Prices Advisory Body would probably bear recapitulation here. So far as the Prices Advisory Body is concerned it has the right to undertake an inquiry on its own into the cost of any commodity and the retail margins on commodities, or if requested by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, then it must undertake the inquiry. During the past nine months it has undertaken more public inquiries than it did during the previous three years and I hope it will be possible to arrange that these inquiries will continue in the interests of the consuming public. I agree with a certain criticism which has been expressed about a shortcoming in the Prices Advisory Body mechanism. Certain members of the Prices Advisory Body are wholetime officials of that body and it is generally expected that in that capacity they expect to examine the material which relates to the inquiry which is delegated to them but it may well be that we require associated with the Prices Advisory Body somebody who will be a consumer's advocate, somebody who will get down to the facts, who knows how to get facts and figures, who knows how to put questions and how to get answers and who knows how to use the material extracted as a result of the answers. It may be desirable— and I am having this matter examined —to associate with the Prices Advisory Body an advocate of that kind who will be a special consumer's watch-dog before the Prices Advisory Body so that that person could, therefore, interrogate those who come before the Prices Advisory Body seeking increases, then leaving the body to itself to consider the evidence, sift it, and come to some decision on the merits of the claim which has been made for the increase. I think that with whatever imperfections it has, the Prices Advisory Body has done useful work. I agree with Senator Sheehy Skeffington that the body has certainly protected the public from increases which would have operated automatically and without any concern of anybody here in the short time of existence of the Prices Advisory Body.

It is a useful piece of machinery. In the light of experience we can perfect it and at all events we should keep it and utilise it to the fullest so far as the regulation of price movements is concerned especially in those ranges of commodities which are essential to the lives of our people.

While the Government's policy has been under fire from the Opposition Benches here for the past six or seven hours I think it would probably be well at this stage to remind the Opposition of what the Government has done in a relatively short period of time. As I said, we have reduced the price of butter and we have held tea prices. The number of persons unemployed to-day is between 4,000 and 7,000 less than it was this day 12 months ago. The number of additional people in industries producing transportable goods has shown quite a substantial increase in the past six months. Over 60 new industries or extensions of existing industries have been established. Industrial production had increased by four points in December last as compared with the figure for the September quarter.

The Government's financial rectitude is exemplified in the fact that although we floated a loan at a lower rate of interest than two previous loans floated by Fianna Fáil, these loans are to-day at a premium notwithstanding an adverse movement against the Government funds in a neighbouring country. We have shown evidence of our willingness to implement the programme which we set before the people. A Bill to amend the County Management Act is at present going through the Dáil. A Bill to improve workmen's compensation which Fianna Fáil voted against when they were in office is also before the Dáil and will be passed into operation shortly. The Government promised as well that it would improve the social services. It did not promise to do it in the first month or two but the next move which the Government will make in the field of social services is to raise old age pensions, blind pensions and widows' and orphans' pensions. That will be done for a section of the community which, as the Fianna Fáil Senators know, would have got nothing from the return of the Fianna Fáil Government at the recent election because the leaders of the Fianna Fáil Party have declared that the country was spending already too much on social services and there should be no more money spent on improving those services.

When you remember that nine months is just a second, if indeed it is a second, on the clock of history and remember these achievements by an inter-Party Government, I think if you draw a balance sheet now and put down on the debit side anything you can attribute to us of the most catastrophic kind and put down on the credit side our achievements and draw a line, I think we will be in the black and not in the red so far as the public appraisal of our financial political standing is concerned.

Listening to Senator Cogan here this evening one would think we had arrived at the last outpost of human misery in this country. I have listened to Senator Cogan speak for so many Parties in his time that it is not wise, I suppose, to take the Senator seriously when he is now talking from a Fianna Fáil platform. However, I would not like to conclude without congratulating the Senator on his political versatility. He seems to have settled down now quite comfortably in the ranks of the Fianna Fáil Party but that is no trouble to the Senator. He has settled with equal comfort in other Parties but I warn Senator Hawkins he has never stayed very long in any of them and unless he is kept on a short lead anything may happen one of these days. He has been around so many Parties that there is not much room for the Senator to manoeuvre in. I will conclude by congratulating him on the verve he put into his speech this evening which represented all the zeal of the convert.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take the remaining stages now.

Bill passed through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 10 Mar 1955