Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 15 Feb 1924

Vol. 6 No. 15

HOUSING (BUILDING FACILITIES) BILL, 1924. - COMMITTEE STAGE RESUMED.

took the Chair at this stage.

ACTING CHAIRMAN

When Progress was reported yesterday, we were discussing Amendment 43 by Deputy Good, to delete Section 8.

The motion to delete the Section, I take it, would be taken on a vote as to whether the Section would stand. This is a Section to which we attach very considerable importance. As I mentioned on a former occasion, many statements have been made on this question of housing as to the contributing causes to its being an uneconomic proposition. In one case I mentioned where it had been alleged that the builders were making an undue profit, we arranged that something in the nature of a competition should take place between a building guild and builders, and I think that the result of that experiment scarcely disclosed the fact that abnormal profits were netted by builders. The question is now being further examined, by reason of this particular clause, which would enable us to see, and to take steps if we do see, that excessive prices are being charged for building materials. I think that within a short period the Minister for Industry and Commerce will introduce a Bill dealing with the cost of living. To some extent this particular service, by reason of its high cost may also affect the cost of living, but, apart even from that, if it had no such relation at all, we thought that the Minister for Local Government ought to have an opportunity to examine this question, as far as this particular operation of the service of the provision of houses is concerned. If there be no case for examination, we are not going to examine. If there be a case, no justification that I have heard has been alleged as to why we should not take this power. The facts of the case are that the State, and the local authorities, are called upon to bolster up an uneconomic service. It is the duty of both parties to that particular expenditure that they should see that no unfair impost is placed on a service of this sort which, on examination, could be remedied, and that a responsible Minister, having discovered that the costs are prohibitive, may issue an Order. In other words, he may regulate prices by the issue of an Order, having examined the subject and having found that a case lies for such a regulation. It is said that the control of certain articles produces an increase in prices. Well, whatever are the causes of the increase in prices, definite steps must ultimately be taken by persons in authority to see that the evil course is arrested at the earliest possible moment.

In this particular case, it may be taken by some that it is an interference with business. Well, business, any more than anything in this country, is not absolutely independent, and is not going to have its independence guaranteed if it is operating to the detriment of the remainder of the community. There are not opportunities for other activities to get exorbitant prices. You do not find farmers making a corner in cattle and refusing to let them out, except they get certain prices. To that extent they have a market, and upon that market they are existing. Here is a different class of market, which is controlled by a relatively small number of people. With their genuine, legitimate, normal profits we are not concerned. We realise they are entitled to that, and we do not intend to interfere with it; but we cannot lose sight of the fact that perhaps the most uneconomic service in the State is housing. We have asked for co-operation between the two sections—the builders and employees—but there is this other service coming in and cutting across it, that should be equally responsible to such arrangement. Unless we have a provision such as this, no corrective methods can possibly be adopted if advantage is taken of the fact that certain articles are required and prices may be kept up. I am prepared to say that it is not our intention to have this permanently a statute, that it is only for the life of the Bill that it is intended. If there are any misgivings with regard to that, I am prepared to consider, between this and the Report Stage, to see if it is necessary that some words to that effect should be inserted in the Bill.

ACTING CHAIRMAN

With reference to the President's suggestion that a division should be taken as to whether the Section should stand, there are other amendments to the Section, and I think Deputy Good is entitled to have a division on this particular amendment. If that is defeated, then the Section can be modified in other ways. If he carries the amendment the whole Section falls.

In replying to the different statements made in connection with this amendment, I would like briefly to refer to one or two of the more important. First of all, Deputy O'Mahony, yesterday afternoon, in replying to an observation of mine where I pointed out that the effect of this clause would be to keep capital, particularly British capital, from being invested in Irish industry, answered that by asking: "Do we want British capital?" Well, if that is the intention of the clause let it be so stated. If the intention on the part of the Government is to prevent British capital being invested in this country, let us have such a statement officially from the Government, but, as I understand the situation, that is not the view of the Government at all. With all respect to Deputy O'Mahony's experience in this particular matter, I would like to point out to him that the very same influences that will keep British capital from investing in these necessary industries in this poor country will also prevent Irish capital from investing in them. Reference was also made to combines and the possible effect of combines. I think it was Deputy Johnson who instanced the case of the cement combine. I do not know whether Deputy Johnson is aware of the circumstances which brought about that combine. In the cement industry to-day there is a competition that practically does not exist in any other industry.

Cement is being largely manufactured in Germany, France, Belgium, and Holland, and all are in competition with the cement manufactured in Great Britain and Ireland. I do not know of any industry to-day where the competition is so keen as in the cement industry, and in order to prevent that industry from being overwhelmed by these Continental competitors this combine was set up, and it has succeeded in maintaining that particular industry, which but for the existence of that combine would have passed away from us. I would like further to inform Deputy Johnson that it is due to the existence of that combine that Irish cement can be purchased at a much lower figure in Ireland to-day than it can be manufactured at. When Deputy Hewat pointed out yesterday that the effect of a combine sometimes is to lower prices, many Deputies, I think, were sceptical. There can be no scepticism at all with regard to the application of that statement to the cement industry in Ireland. I am quite satisfied from the knowledge I possess that but for the existence of that combine it would be impossible to get Irish cement to-day at the figure at which it is sold. Deputy Johnson in his effort to produce some evidence of profiteering mentioned some figures in connection with a local firm of builders' providers. From what I know of Deputy Johnson in the Dáil, I am sure he had no desire whatever to put forward these figures in anything but an accurate form, but in giving the figures—possibly I did not get them correctly, and I am sure they are not correctly published in some of the reports in to-day's papers—he said, as well as I could follow his statement in connection with this particular company, that in the four years preceding 1916 its average distributive profits—

The ordinary shares.

The ordinary shares were £3,000. For the succeeding four years, the average profits distributed amongst the ordinary shareholders I saw in one of the papers was £8,000. I am sure that is inaccurate, and that the figure mentioned by Deputy Johnson was £5,100.

In the succeeding four years, 1919, 1920, 1921 and 1922.

As I understand the position, of course, the years he has given now are somewhat different from what I understood he gave us yesterday— the years 1917, 1918, 1919 and 1920, the years following 1916. The average distributed profit to the ordinary shareholders in these years, was £4,375 per annum. That would be an increase of £1,375 over the four preceding years. Am I correct in that?

Quite right.

The point I would like to lay stress on is that the increase is not a large one, as the ordinary shares of the Company were increased by 50 per cent. ——

Actual cash?

Very largely new cash. It does not make any difference whatever as to whether it is a transfer of reserves or new cash, but I understand in this case it was very largely new cash. That is a point which I cannot recall that Deputy Johnson mentioned. I certainly think it is due to the company to say that the capital of the ordinary shares has increased by 50 per cent. during that period. If that is so, relatively per share the profit is less.

Will the Deputy tell us what was the rate per cent. of profit on the ordinary shares for 1920 and 1921?

I have only got the amount before me as mentioned by Deputy Johnson yesterday. He mentioned a lump sum for distribution. I think it is only fair to the company— and I am quite sure if Deputy Johnson had been aware of this fact he would have mentioned it—to state that the ordinary shares of the company were increased by 50 per cent. during the period that he mentioned. Consequently the profit of the company, owing to the increased capital, was increased. That is the reason for the increase. I am sure if we came to work out the figures we would find that, relatively in proportion to the capital—I am only taking the figures as they appear before me— the rate of profit per capita, instead of being increased, was really less in the following years. The President has pointed out that builders' profits have been alleged to be abnormal. Before we include drastic Sections of this particular nature in any measure, I think we want some proof of these allegations. The allegations have been suggested. I have not seen them put forward with any force. I have seen allegations put forward in connection with other industries. They have been proved, but I have yet to see any action on the part of the Government in connection with those industries. Here, in connection with an industry as to which I am satisfied no such allegations can be supported, the Government moves and includes a Section in this Bill. Why are the others to go free, and why is this particular industry to be singled out for special treatment? I think we require to know something more than the President has given us. Outside, as Deputy Hewat has pointed out, this Section is looked upon as eye-wash. It is looked upon very largely as a sop to Labour. The Government of this country ought to be above these sort of things. If we are going to have Sections inserted of a drastic nature, let us have justification for those Sections, and none of us will take exception. But, in the absence of such justification, we have every right to take exception to a Section of this drastic nature.

The President has also pointed out that this particular Section is not intended to go outside the purview of this particular Bill. On that point my information is—and I have every reason to rely on the information, knowing the source from which it comes—that this Section will operate after the other Sections of the Bill have ceased to operate, and that it is the intention of those framing the Bill that it shall so operate. May I read from Section 9, which says:—

"It shall be lawful for the Minister, whenever, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, it appears to him expedient for the purpose of facilitating the building, reconstruction or repair of houses (including as well houses to which this Act does not apply as houses to which it does apply)."

What is the use of telling the Dáil that it was not the intention that the Bill should apply outside the houses which come within its particular purview? Is it not quite clear from Section 9 that the operation of this Bill is intended to go outside the houses covered by the Bill? If that is not so, let us clearly understand it. I have complained on more than one occasion during the discussion that the Sections are so ambiguous it would take so much time to understand the Bill, that the time limit laid down will have expired before we really understand what it means. By that time its operation or usefulness will have ceased. I do not want to criticise the Bill unfairly, but I think it ought to be the desire of those putting forward such Bills that they should be understood by everybody, and that they should be made as clear as possible. I suggest that the President, in view of what has been pointed out in connection with this Section 8, should reconsider the Section in the interests of the Free State and its industry.

In reference to the last matter mentioned by Deputy Good, as I understood the President's statement, it was that this Section would not apply outside the time-limit of the Bill. If you consider this Section it is obvious that as it applies to building material, it must apply to building material used for other houses as well as the houses mentioned in the Bill. I think the President made it quite clear when he said it did not apply, that he meant it did not apply outside the time-limit of this Bill. He certainly did not say it did not apply to materials used for other houses that are not built under this Bill. Therefore, I think the point mentioned by Deputy Good had no reference to the President's statement.

That is right.

The pressure from Deputy Good apparently compelled the President to exhibit his weakness in this matter. Supported by Deputy Sullivan, he now tells the Dáil that the proposals in Sections 8 and 9 are only to apply during the time this Bill is in operation, presumably 18 months, if the amendment which has now been accepted is finally embodied in the Bill. I put it to the President: had he not better throw the thing overboard altogether, rather than attempt to apply a big principle of this kind to an industry such as the housing industry and limiting it by a promise that it would only extend over that period? If he knows anything about the operation of combines and trusts, and rings and private arrangements, which do not appear in evidence, he will know that it would take him a good part of that 18 months to ferret out the facts. I suggest that it is useless to proceed with this Section in the Bill under the pall of a promise of that kind. It would simply mean that the Section is not intended to operate, and, as Deputy Hewat said, it was merely intended to be eyewash, or, as Deputy Good said, it was merely intended as a sop to blind those people who were demanding activity to repress profiteering in housing materials. Far better abandon it altogether and make no pretence if it is intended only to apply to the houses likely to be built under this Bill or the period during which this Bill will operate. Far better, I say, to run a risk and wait until the Government are compelled to do a much more drastic thing by the force of events, than make a promise of this kind and practically tie the hands of the Department which would have the duty of putting the Section into operation.

I assure Deputy Good that he is quite right in saying that I had no intention of misleading or of quoting figures which would have the effect of misleading the Dáil. The figures I quoted were taken from the Stock Exchange Year Book, 1923. It is quite true there were some changes in the capitalisation of the company in question. The note that appears in the Year Book tells us that in July, 1920, £10,000 from the reserve fund were capitalised, 40,000 additional ordinary shares being created and issued to the ordinary shareholders in the proportion of one new share for each share held and credited with 5s. per share paid. There is no information as to how much new capital was supplied, if any. Reserve funds were taken to help in the creation and paying up of new share capital and the dividends which I quoted show that there has been a considerable increase in the rate of profit as compared with the years 1913 to 1916. The years I quoted were 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922. I did not quote them to show that there was profiteering. I am not going to allege, I am too careful of facts to allege, that a mere increase in profits justifies the epithet "profiteering." Increasing profits may be obtained by other means than the exercise of the power of extracting prices from the public. I mentioned these figures simply to show that the pleadings of bad times in the building industry are not quite so effective when we are dealing with building material profiteers. During bad times, so far as housing is concerned, and during the slump in the trade, profiteers were able to maintain the rate of profit and to distribute larger sums from profits than during the years immediately preceding the war or the earlier years of the war.

The necessity for inquiring into the profits of companies which are alleged to be charging excessively is quite a different one and I shall have something to say on this matter if my amendment, No. 44, is reached. I would just say that there is ample proof of the necessity for some control of prices in the building trades. There should be no shame and no hesitation on the part of capitalists to have their books examined by a tribunal appointed by the Government if there is nothing to hide. It is one of the curious characteristics of capitalists that they are so anxious to hide the facts whenever any question arises as between workmen and employers, between a trades union and the employers' federation. There is a determined and united resistance to any demand to publish the facts about the business. That secrecy is responsible for a great deal of suspicion, not only in connection with one phase of public life, but this particular phase of public life, or what ought to be public life. I hope the Ministry will stand by the Section and remove the promise which is implied in the President's statement, that it is only intended to refer to houses built during the period of this grant of £300,000; remove the impression that the President's statement has created that the Section has no real significance, and is not intended as anything more than what Deputy Hewat described as eyewash.

I quite accept the President's intention as he has stated it, but I wish to put it to him that if that is his intention some definite amendment in the Bill, as it is before us, is really necessary. On the face of it, I think the wording of the Bill is definitely against that intention. The Bill is not for one definite purpose, but for at least two purposes. It is a Bill to facilitate the building of houses and to provide materials at reasonable prices. There are certain Sections in the Bill which are definitely made operative for a limited period. Having left these Sections, we come to this Section which definitely says:—"The Minister may at any time, if he thinks fit." I submit that makes it quite clear to anybody who comes to read the Bill afterwards, apart from the President's intention, that it can only be interpreted as meaning at any time, even after the 18 months have expired. I can find no Section in the Bill limiting the operation of this to a limited period of time, 12 or 18 months, or whatever it may be. I submit, if that is the President's intention, it will be necessary on the Report Stage to insert an amending section, making it explicit that the operation of the Bill is for a limited period, as has been done with so many Acts that came before us.

I have heard nothing to alter the views I expressed last evening with regard to the maintenance of this Section in the Bill. I think it is most desirable that it should be maintained. As far as a lay mind can measure the powers conferred on the Minister in this Section, I feel that its operation must necessarily be confined to the particular purpose for which the Bill has been brought in.

Section 9 has been referred to by Deputy Good as warranting the suggestion that these inquiries into the cost of materials may continue to be held by the Minister at any time in the future. But if you read the Section to the end you will find that the power that is given there to the Minister with respect both to houses built under this present Bill and houses to which this Bill does not apply is power not to hold inquiries, but power "to purchase or manufacture, store, transport and sell any materials that may be required." The power of inquiry ceases with Section 8, and in view of the statement made by the President I think we may rest satisfied that these powers are not going to be exercised except in association with the necessities of this Bill. Can any objection be raised to the exercise of these powers? You may take it that the Minister is not going to initiate an inquiry into the cost of building material or any particular class of building material, until a satisfactory prima facie case has been made for him. If such a case has been made for him, then I say that there is a duty cast upon the Executive Government to hold an inquiry and to see that the purchasing public will be enabled to buy materials at a legitimate and reasonable price. How can such an inquiry re-act upon any firm that is only making a legitimate profit in the sale of materials plus the necessary contingencies that big firms must allow for in such circumstances? If it is proved and proved conclusively that a firm is profiteering, then I say that that firm should be called upon to pay the penalty for so doing, but if proof is not forthcoming sufficient to establish the fact that the firm is profiteering, what is the position, then, of that firm? Why, its name for fair trading will have got a backing that otherwise it would not have. Its position will be strengthened in the mercantile world.

Reference has been made by Deputy Good to the question of the manufacture of cement in so far as Irish interests are concerned. It is the first time that I heard that the action of any manufacturing Trust in England was directed with purely philanthropic intentions towards Ireland. You will find that the determining factor in the Englishman's mind, as it would be in our minds in such circumstances, is to do the best they can for themselves. The present low price of cement in this country is not due to the fact that a Trust has been created in England. As long as that Trust in England was free from the competition of the Continent, as Deputy Good knows very well, they made the people of this country bleed in respect of the prices they charged for cement. He knows also that the only two cement manufacturing companies that we had in this country were bought up by this Trust. He knows also that these works were closed down, or suspended, when it suited the English firms to do so. If there is a resumption on a relatively small scale to meet the requirements of the country that resumption will be entirely due to the fact that the Government of Saorstát Eireann and not the English Government is now functioning here. Capital and profits in the past, to my mind, do not affect the question inasmuch as the Ministry is not going to deal with what was earned in 1920 or 1921. What the Ministry will deal with, if occasion should arise, is existing circumstances, and if it is found that the charges with respect to any particular class of material are considered too high and the Minister is satisfied on the evidence that he has before him that such is the case, then it is the duty to hold an inquiry to determine whether the charges are warranted or not. Deputy Good suggested that this inquiry is a sop to labour, but I say that this inquiry will cut both ways, that when the merchant is making his case he will take very good care to show what part labour plays in computing the price of the article. For that reason it is an inquiry that will cut both ways, and because of the convictions I hold generally on the matter I intend to give my support to the Section.

Mr. EGAN

I do not profess to be an expert in the matter of interpreting a Bill or an Act of Parliament, but I think that the assurance that the President has given to Deputy Good that the principle embodied in this Section (8) is not intended to have a permanent effect should mean that a great deal of the strength of his opposition to the inclusion of this Section should disappear. Under Section 2 a definite sum of money is laid down to be contributed by the State—a sum of £300,000. As a matter of common sense I fail to see how, once that sum of money is spent, the provisions of Section 8 can apply at all. It appears to me to be perfectly evident that the provisions of Section 8 simply refer to those building transactions which are covered by the sum of money which the State is going to put up in connection with building. There is one aspect of the question that appears to have been overlooked by nearly every Deputy, and more particularly, I think, by Deputy Good. There is an old principle that the man who pays the piper shall call the tune. While I, as a matter of general principle, would distinctly object to Government interference in the management of a business, in this case they are interfering in the managing of a business in which they are investing some of their own money. For that reason I consider they have a perfect right to have some voice in the control of the operation of this Bill and in the spending of their own money. On general principles I think the question of Government interference in business is decidedly bad for business and bad for the commercial future of any country, because if a man is running a business and he is to be interfered with by outside agencies all initiative on his part ceases, and he can never build up an efficient business. For these reasons, I think it is perfectly right that the Section should stand as it is.

I would like to say that I am rather disappointed with the reception that this particular Section has got. Deputy Good thinks that it is going to mean the ruination of business, and other people say it is eye wash. To some extent Deputy Johnson agrees with that.

Only in conjunction with your assurance.

The time of this Bill is a year and ten months. I think it would be very inadvisable that we should pass legislation of this sort dealing with a temporary subject, and seek to make certain provisions of the Act permanent. It would not, I think, be a respectable way of doing the thing. It would be, as it were, using a sum of £300,000 to get a grip on services that you would be scarcely justified in getting. There is one danger that I put to the Deputy, and those for whom he speaks—that the mere fact that the State has got to go into this business, is doing more towards raising a state of Socialism here than anything that might be done to the contrary by us in seeking to limit our costs in this regard. Day after day, and year after year, new burthens are being placed upon the State, and the State is being called upon to discharge duties that 20 or 30, or 40 years ago would not be thought of. We come forward with a huge sum of money—huge in relation to the amount we can afford—and we seek to take, as Deputy Egan says, some precaution, so that we will not be plundered. Then we are told: "Hands off our businesses; we must be allowed to develop them in our own way." Why do you not develop them? What is keeping you from doing it? Why not provide these services out of private enterprise? You are not able to do it. You may say the fault is not exactly your own, that the fault is with the people on the other side. But they say tu quoque. Where are we then? We get nowhere.

Why not make inquiry on both sides?

These inquiries usually take a long time, and they do not get farther than the allegations made on one side or other. If we make inquiry on one side, and then are faced with making it on the other side, the man who requires the house, and who is the innocent sufferer at the hands of both, has naturally a grievance against us. We endeavoured, by doing something like this, to bring a little common-sense to bear on both sides of the question, and to get some real result.

I am not desirous of leaving the Dáil under any misapprehension in regard to building materials. This clause will deal with building materials, whether for this service or not. I have some justification for saying that. It might be put up to us that, granted there was the co-operation we asked for by labour leaders, they would be prepared to accept a lower charge for building houses for themselves. I would not accept that. This Bill is not entirely a philanthropic measure on the part of the State. In the first place, it is a duty. In the second place, if by reason of this Bill we can bring down the cost of living, I expect our liability under the Damage to Property Act will be reduced. I am not going to recommend to the Dáil that a great, big organisation, such as the Builders' Providers, should have an absolutely free hand at a time when, through misfortune, the State is called upon to construct a large number of houses throughout the country. It would not be fair. I think we agreed that this Bill will have a life of four months beyond eighteen months. I objected to that extension. I would rather the Bill had a life of only twelve months, and that we would be able to put up this number of houses each year. I am not at all satisfied in connection with this measure that restrictive clauses, such as those clauses which would tend to embitter either the business people or the employees, are desirable. I do not think it would be advisable to stereotype for all time any such statute as this. I hope the time will come when it will not be necessary. If that time did come, even within the twenty-two months during which this particular clause will operate, the Minister would not use it. But it must be admitted that during the war period, during the period of control even of certain commodities, building requisites produced enormous profits. I understand that in connection with the control of timber, something beyond colossal profits were made. Men became millionaires.

The industry was controlled and the profits made by the Government.

I am not so sure that some people did not partake of some of those profits—I do not mean to say the builders. I have heard of a case in which a man made £1,000,000 in connection with timber. On a service like this, that is really equivalent to defrauding the labourer of his wage. I do not believe anybody stands for it. I do believe that just the same as the people on the other side anticipate and expect a far better standard of living, the business people also expect a higher percentage of profit than they did during the war. We must shake the two of them.

But do not shake one without the other.

I am expecting that the people on the other side when they see that the employers are being hard hit will appreciate that fact and bring down their exorbitant demands.

Amendment put and declared lost by the Acting-Chairman.

asked for a division.

Might I suggest that the Deputy's purpose would be served equally well if, instead of calling for a division on this amendment, he would call for a division on the clause when we have dealt with all the amendments. A contrary vote would then secure his purpose.

ACTING - CHAIRMAN

Strictly speaking, I had put the question before the Deputy called for a division.

On a point of order, it is possible my amendment may be carried, and that Deputy Good may agree with it, so that his action in asking for a division at this stage is the correct procedure.

ACTING-CHAIRMAN

If he had asked for a division before I had declared the amendment lost it would undoubtedly have been the correct procedure. But I had declared the amendment lost before he called for a division. However, if he desires a division now I will permit it.

I do not insist. I will accept the suggestion of the President.

Amendment declared lost.

I move Amendment 44:—

In sub-section (1), lines 45 and 46, to delete the words "a local" and to substitute therefor the word "an," and in lines 48 and 49 to delete the words "in any county, county borough, town, district, or other area," and in line 50, to delete the word "local," and in lines 51, 55, and 58, to delete the words "in that area."

The object of this amendment is to delete certain words which restrict these inquiries to local inquiries. If the amendment is accepted, the inquiry which the Minister has power to institute may be a local inquiry, but it may also be a national inquiry. It is unduly restrictive to say that this inquiry, which the Minister may order if he thinks fit, should only be a local inquiry in any county, county borough, town, district, or other area. One might say, of course, that "other area" would include the whole country. But when one indicates localities in a Bill of this kind, the inclination will be rather to restrict than to enlarge the provisions. And if one is thinking that "other area" would include the whole of the Saorstát, then there should be no objection to removing these limitations in the clause.

There is reason, no doubt, for having local inquiries into local excess. But unfortunately for the country the grievances which we suffer from may be in many cases imposed from outside, and restrictions imposed even upon local merchants and factors by outside authorities lead to excessive prices. I would like the powers of this inquiry to include the whole country, and in so far as it would be possible, even to go outside the country. In the previous discussion some questions were raised as to the possibility of regulating prices to the detriment of the consumer or to the detriment of the Building Materials Provider, and to show that this is not a mere local trouble, I propose to draw the attention of the Dáil to certain matters which came under the notice of an inquiry in England. The importance of this is that combines and trusts in England restrict the customers of those combines and prevent the customers of those combines, for one article, buying outside the combine, therefore preventing an Irish buyer of light castings, for instance, going to Germany for light castings under pain of being refused any article which the combine might supply. It would be of interest to the Dáil, and probably to Deputy Good who knows all about it, if I remind him that the British National Federation of House Builders was the body which last year demanded that there should be an inquiry into the activities of some of those trusts and combines, and I do that to show that is not merely a labour bogey. The house builders themselves were the people who demanded that this inquiry should be insisted upon. References have been made to the cement combine, and Deputy Good has asserted that but for the existence of that combine cement could not be bought in the Saorstát at anything like present prices.

Irish cement.

Oh! then we are led to conclude that it is by the activities of the British combine in Ireland that Irish cement is produced and sold at its present prices.

Does not that prove to the Dáil that that combine is able to fix and to regulate the prices? Is not that an effective answer to Deputy Hewat? Even if it is a low price, it is the price which the combine is able to fix and, as Deputy O'Mahony has pointed out, but for the fact that there exists competition from other countries, such as Belgium and Germany—which competition may very conveniently be also bought up and brought into the combine one of these days—it might be higher. It all goes to prove the necessity for some control, not only on local prices, but national prices, and the powers which outside combines are able to bring to bear upon local merchants and providers. It may be found that the State, notwithstanding its powers, is not able to control effectively the big corporations, and it may be possible in the days to come to enter into treaties with other countries or governments, as may be friendly disposed to this view, to control effectively those combines, not only in England, but in Ireland. Treaty-making of that kind will, I am sure, be highly appreciated by the general mass of the public. But there is another association about which I want to say a word or two, the Light Castings Association. This was the subject of an inquiry by a British Parliamentary Committee. That British combine has had an effect here. It has its hands on the throttle of the traders in this country, and should be able to influence the prices in this country, and should be the subject of an inquiry, so far as the State is able to inquire into the conduct of a body outside its jurisdiction. The British Committee reported on the Light Castings Association that "that Association had not merely controlled, but fixed the prices of 95 per cent. of all the material they produced for the purpose of house building." That 95 per cent. effectively determined the price of the other 5 per cent. I am sure Deputy Hewat would agree with that. This Association was formed in 1911, and it declared its purpose to be as follows:—"The object the Association has in view is that of raising and keeping up the prices to the buyers of goods and articles made and supplied to its members." That is the first object. The second is: "This shall be done by means of pooling arrangements, so controlling production that prices will rise naturally and inevitably as they always do when supply is brought into equilibrium with, or as soon as may be, a little below demand."

They laid it down that there should be a pool so far as the production of materials necessary for house building is concerned, and they were to take the output of pre-war times as a standard. They fixed a standard based upon the output of pre-war times, and any firm which produced a certain quantity over that standard was to be penalised to the extent of 7½ per cent. of its additional trade, not its profits, while the less efficient firm which did not produce up to the standard set by the Association was to be at liberty to draw from the pool 7½ per cent. of the total value of what it had produced pre-war. "In effect," said one witness, who had been a member of the Association, "by this process of pooling the Association penalises progress and encourages laziness."

The Committee reported that "the powers of the Association, which wields such control over industry, are so open to abuse as to make it a menace to the well-being of the community. This Association, which controlled 95 per cent. of the output of light castings, which so largely enter into house-building operations, formed in 1911, immediately afterwards sent out a circular adding 10 per cent. to all prices which even had enabled profit to be made. Within four months an additional 10 per cent. was added to the cost of the light castings." This was not during the war, but in 1911.

Did you say 1911? That was thirteen years ago.

At least twelve years ago.

You are going back very far.

I am quoting this to show that it is possible for these combines to regulate prices. "Within four months an additional ten per cent. was added to the cost of light castings connected with house building, while in another three months an additional 5 per cent. was added." So that within seven months, on the authority of the British Parliamentary Committee, that great protective Association had added no less han 25 per cent. to the prices charged for light castings. The point is this, that it controls the profits and the prices that the retailers or the merchants may charge. It penalises every merchant who buys from anybody outside the Association. There is where I saw the necessity exists for having this wider inquiry. One large London builder, for instance, sought to buy baths in Germany, and he was as enterprising as the President would like house builders to be. He chartered a steamer and brought in 5,000 baths from Germany. They were put into the houses at 38/- a bath, as against the price charged by the Association of 70/-.

took the Chair at this stage.

That is one way whereby it may be possible, if the inquiry is made to be a national inquiry, and not merely a local inquiry, for some assistance to be given to the Irish builders who are not manufacturers of castings or raw materials of any kind for house building, but who have to import, so that they may be protected from the operations of these combines which do, notwithstanding what Deputy Hewat says, effectively control prices.

Does Deputy Johnson recognise that he has contradicted himself there?

No, I do not. I recognise that the merchant or the small trader, notwithstanding his desire to go outside the combine, is effectively bound by the machinations of trade to those combines, and the competition which Deputy Hewat alludes to is not effective. I desire that, through the inquiry I suggest, it should be made effective. I therefore move the amendment.

I would like to move that we report progress now, and we can take the division on this amendment the next day.

When will the Committee resume?

On Wednesday.

Barr
Roinn