Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 25 Jun 1924

Vol. 7 No. 30

TRADE LOANS (GUARANTEE) BILL, 1924.—SECOND STAGE RESUMED.

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

It was agreed to resume the debate after the disposal of Deputy Milroy's motion.

We on those Benches welcome this Bill if it means what we think it means; but we are not quite sure that it does mean that. I notice that the Minister, when speaking in connection with this Bill, did not refer once to the agricultural industry. I believe if we could read into his mind we would see that he means this Bill to deal almost exclusively with industries which are connected with cities and towns, and that he has almost overlooked the very important industry of agriculture. I may be wrong. I trust I am wrong; but that is the impression that I got from his statement. If that is so, I desire to protest against it. I think the tendency in the Dáil in recent times has been to devote too much attention to the industrial side, or what is known as the industrial side, and not at all sufficient attention is devoted to agricultural interests.

We get very little sympathy from the Government Benches. We get a good deal of derision. Were it not that in the Minister for Lands and Agriculture we have a stalwart supporter of the agricultural industry, we would be without support of any kind on the Government Benches. This Bill is simply the framework of a Bill, and it is difficult to understand how it will work out in actual practice. The success or failure of it depends largely upon its administration. With regard to the Advisory Council, it is very important that it should be composed of the interests most vitally concerned in the country. In that connection I would again refer to the Minister's speech, and I cannot recollect him saying that there would be representatives of agriculture on the Advisory Council. Again I may be wrong, and I trust I am.

I hope it is the intention to give agriculture representation in proportion to its numbers and to the value of the industry. On the Advisory Council we should have representation in proportion to our numbers. It is stated that agriculturalists represent 75 per cent. of the actual population of the country. It is only reasonable and just that we should claim such representation. Frequently we have been told by the Minister for Lands and Agriculture of the dire condition of the agricultural industry. It is a favourite topic of his, and I think he ought to have fully impressed on the Dáil by this time that the industry is in a parlous state.

I notice that he throws the onus of saving the industry on the farmers themselves. He said that so far as the Government is concerned they can do nothing, and that the farmers must help themselves. That is hardly reasonable, and it is scarcely in accordance with the help given to agriculture in other countries. It is not in accordance with the requirements of agriculture here. I have here a copy of the Official Report containing a speech of the Minister for Lands and Agriculture in connection with Unemployment Insurance. His speech on that occasion, in my opinion, was one which could have come excellently from the Farmers' Benches if we had the capability and the imagination for producing such a fine statement regarding the condition of the agricultural industry.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE took the Chair.

I would like to give the Dáil a quotation from the speech. I would, in fact, like to quote the whole speech, because from beginning to end it is an excellent exposition of the condition of depression from which the agricultural industry is suffering. I will, however, quote only portion of the statement. In reply to an interruption, the Minister said: "This is a democratic country. The farmers are 75 per cent. of the population. The population of this country is three millions, and the farmers and labourers together are two millions, and they should see that they get in the country what is due to them; but they will not get it unless they organise themselves. If they organise themselves the Government can co-operate with them; if they do not, we cannot help them. The productivity of the next year depends on whether the producer looks after his business. We can do nothing unless he does."

I would ask the Minister does he really mean that? Does he really mean that unless the farmers produce this fabulous state of organisation that the Government can do nothing for them? Does he mean to say we cannot avail of the facilities of this Bill unless we succeed in organising the farmers in a manner in which farmers have never been organised before and never will? The Minister is as thoroughly aware as I am that it is almost an unknown thing to organise farmers in the way that industrialists and industrial workers may be organised. Their position in the country prevents that, and I would say to the Minister that the farmers are probably as well organised as the farming community in any other country in the world. There may be other countries which are better organised from a farming point of view. We hear a lot about Denmark, and Denmark may be better organised, but my experience of other agricultural countries is that we are as far ahead in this country as the farming community in any other country in the world. You will find that the Irish co-operative system is quoted, as something to be emulated, by the agricultural papers of other countries. That being so, I do not accept the statement of the Minister that unless we put ourselves into the position of unity which he expects from us we are not to get the benefits of this Bill. The Minister told us that we are fond of using eyewash, and we got a great lecture upon what we are to do. It is a case of "live horse and you will get grass." Why will not the Government do something for us at once?

Mr. HOGAN

Organise you?

I think he will succeed in organising us.

By reducing wages

We will have to organise to hold our own against them in the end, but as a matter of fact, we are as well organised as any farming community in the world. For that reason we are entitled to the facilities under this Bill which any farming community would be entitled to. I would like to ask the Minister if that will be applicable to co-operative societies. Many co-operative societies are at present in a backward state. They have been adversely affected by the bad times through which the country has passed, and many of them require outside help if they are to continue. I sincerely hope that the intention of the Bill is that those societies, where they deserve it, and where they show the intention of maintaining themselves in a financially sound position, will get the guarantees and the financial aid which they deserve. I would warn the Minister, if a warning from me is of any use to a man of his experience, that as soon as this thing gets thoroughly known he will have hosts of applications. He may be prepared to turn down about 90 per cent. of these applications, because I believe that every business man who is on his last legs, who sees the bankruptcy court staring him in the face, will immediately rush to the Minister in the hope that by getting these loans and these guarantees he will save his financial neck.

It is not our intention to support the giving away of money which will not come back. I think that guarantees of this kind should be only made in the case of people who are prepared to start or continue sound business propositions and people who are prepared to make a success of them, if it is at all possible, and they should not be used for wild-cat schemes or for the benefit of those who are already on the downward grade and who are gone too far to save. As far as the unemployment question is concerned, I am inclined to think it is a step in the right direction: it is a method by which unemployment should be met. It is a really constructive measure, and much better than the so-called doles and the unemployment insurance, which are not constructive and which are to a certain extent of a demoralising effect. Subject to the guarantee that agriculture will get its share in proportion to the value of the industry, I and the Deputies on these benches are prepared to support this Bill.

In itself this is an excellent Bill. It is not an original Bill; it has followed the British Trade Facilities Bill very closely. That Bill has been tested and it has worked on the whole satisfactorily, and probably the Minister is wise in taking advantage of it. It may be noted that in the one respect in which it departs from the British Trade Facilities Act it is slightly more generous than the British Trades Facilities Act. As far as I can work it out, in the British Bill, 3½ per cent. on the national revenue was guaranteed. In our Bill it is practically 4 per cent. That is not very great, but remembering the parrot cry of the Minister for Finance we may be thankful that we are not worse off than the British, instead of being better off. But I think the Minister was a little disingenuous when he spoke of this Bill running in double harness with the Unemployment Insurance Bill. I thought that there was another Bill with which it would run in double harness, and that is, the Finance Bill, and I am quite sure that applications for these guarantees and these credits will come very largely from people outside the State who wish to set up factories for goods which are being taxed by the Minister for Finance in his Budget. I think that it is a good thing, on the whole; I am not condemning it, but we should recognise that it is the case, and the Minister's remarks when he said that we needed to bring business experience and business knowledge from outside should be noted now, and not made the cause of an outcry later.

So far, then, as the Bill stands, I am prepared to bless it. But it is more than an ordinary Government Bill, brought in in the ordinary course of Government business. It is a Bill to fulfil a pledge, and a very long-delayed pledge, made by the President. Speaking in Rathmines on the 18th of February of this year, at a meeting to promote the candidature of Deputy O'Connor, the President said: "It is not intended to bring in a Bill to fix prices, but it is intended to introduce a Bill to prescribe, as far as we can, some relation of price to value." Last week the President informed us that this was a Bill that was intended to fulfil this pledge. Does the President dispute the reference?

Oh, no, I said the answer was very safe.

I was unable to attend the meeting, and, therefore, had to rely on the public Press, but I hope it is accurate. Now, does this Bill say one word about the relations of price to value? I acquit the Minister. The Minister was not involved in the President's pledge. He was not a member of the Executive Council at the time. But there is a collective responsibility of the Executive Council, and the Minister and the Executive Council cannot ride off on this Bill and say: "We have fulfilled our pledges," when it does absolutely nothing of the sort. There is not a word about the relation of price to value. Of course the President safeguards himself; he said, "as far as we can." It now appears that that is no distance at all. They have not been able to achieve the object which the President, the head of the State, then put forward as an argument in an election.

And on which he secured the return of his candidate.

It was given as an answer to a question.

Therefore it does not matter!

I will leave it there. To my mind if you are going to fix the relation of price to value there are three things you must do. I agree that the absolute fixing of prices is impracticable because it would tend to drive goods out of the market. But there are three things that you can do and that, I think, the public as a whole want done. Firstly you can fix a standard of what is a fair price. It is not easy to acquire a certain department for investigation, but that department already exists to a certain extent. The Government has to fix the cost of living figure and fix bonuses in accordance with it. It only needs some extension of the work of that department, because in dealing with these matters the ordinary average man or woman is at a most hopeless disadvantage. They look at the market reports in the papers; they try to find out what the things ought to cost; they find that one commodity is sold by great hundreds; another is sold by the cask. I am talking of apples—and yet another is sold by the pound. There is, I think, need for the Government to have an Intelligence department that will reduce all these figures to some sort of standard that the ordinary man can understand the scale on which he buys, making a reasonable allowance for the profit of the retailer, and also for cost and expenses. That is the first thing you should do in order to deal with that problem. The second thing I think the Government should do would be to take statutory power to inspect and investigate books bearing on trading transactions. The work of the Committee on Prices was nullified because that power did not exist. It is not asking for anything sensational. Already the Income Tax authorities can compel anybody to lay all their books before them and send them to prison if they will not, and I do not see why, for the purpose of informing the State of the profits that are made in business out of the public, it is unreasonable to ask the average trader to put his cards on the table.

That, then, is the second essential. The third essential I venture to think the majority of people are in favour of is that, if it could be proved, and clearly proved, that a retailer has deliberately and systematically made an excessive and unfair profit out of his customers, he should be punished. I think that we are not asking too much if we say that some punishment should be prescribed in the case of a man who goes beyond the bounds of legitimate trade and of reasonable profit. One must make an allowance for the possibility of a loss instead of a profit, but taking all these things into consideration, I believe that if a man absolutely and callously sets himself out to make the most of the advantage of having a monopoly, or a semi-monopoly, or of being in a ring, it is not too much to ask that he should be punished.

These are three of the points the Government should have borne in mind when framing this measure. Instead, they preferred to adopt the methods which are relatively simple and not expensive. I agree they are relatively simple and not expensive. But are they also effective? If these methods are not effective then the President's pledge has not been fulfilled. It has not been fulfilled in the letter, and, unless there is real reason to believe that this measure will bring about a considerable reduction in prices, it has not been fulfilled in the spirit either. Personally, I am afraid that the hope of a reduction in prices through the means of this Bill is rather vague and unsubstantial, unless the Government are in a position to tell us that they have an assurance from corporate or unincorporated bodies who will reduce the prices. Now there is £300,000 going in this. That money is payable to anybody who will put up a practical scheme to sell the necessities of life cheaper, whether it consists in bringing in milk from Louth and Meath and selling it in Dublin, or establishing a meat factory. There are possibilities, but I am not at all sure that the farmers are the people who are going to take advantage of them. In one respect in which there had been great charges about profiteering, this Bill is lacking. I refer to the cost of porter. I may form an association of consumers—I would not have far to go to find them—I could apply for a loan under this Bill in order to sell porter in Dublin at 7d. instead of 8d. a pint. I believe it is possible to do it. But will the Minister for Justice give me a licence? He certainly would not, and I would have to take the whole £300,000 to buy up existing licences. Now that is a business in which complaints of profiteering have been most general, and it is the cost of porter that has led mostly to strikes along the quays. This Bill does nothing to fulfil the President's pledge, but if the President intended to except porter from his pledge he should have made that clear to the electors at time of the election. I leave that point.

Generally speaking, I have not very much hope of any real movement—unless the members of the trades unions take it up—that would reduce prices as a result of this Bill. In business, as in golf, the professional beats the amateur every time, and these associations of consumers and producers will be amateurs as compared with the middleman. I am sorry Deputy P. Hogan is not in his place, because I think he would be able to tell us the result of an experiment in this direction in Ennis, where the Labour Party tried to reduce the price of butcher's meat. They were very wise. I believe the Labour Party in Ennis tried to bring down the price of butcher's meat, and they started in business on their own. Unfortunately they placed in charge of the scheme a gentleman who knew nothing about buying meat, with the result that they incurred the loss of several hundred pounds. Now it is conceivable, unless this Advisory Committee is very alert, that that is the kind of thing that will happen under this Bill. A scheme like that is the shortest way of wasting money that one could devise, even worse than playing poker. That being so, I must stress the importance of the Advisory Committee, and I do it, as the scheme depends almost entirely on the Advisory Committee. We are asked to take a leap in the dark, because we do not know who the Advisory Committee is to be composed of. I suggest to the Minister that it would facilitate the passage of the Bill if he would, during the next week or two, sound these members, and see whether they would act or not, and announce to the Dáil the names of the Advisory Committee before the Bill passes, because if you get the kind of person who loves to be on an advisory committee, and will talk a lot, and do very little work, this Bill will be a disaster; but if you get the right man it will be a great boon and a great advantage. I am not saying that it will facilitate the process of the Bill if the Minister in advance announces the names of the advisory committee, because the names that would commend themselves to the Labour Party would not commend themselves to me. But the Minister could let us know, if not the names, the qualifications and the kind of persons he is going to put in, because considering the Bill as a Bill, it is obvious that it stands or falls by that particular fact. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will take to heart what I have said, and not keep us in the dark in this matter.

In a speech on this Bill I notice that Deputy Heffernan asks for enlightenment on certain points. I do not know whether he wanted that information or whether it was that he really wanted to string words together. I say that because I noticed he was here while the Minister for Industry and Commerce was speaking, and I thought he listened to his statement. I would give him credit for reading the second section of the Bill before making a speech of a quarter of an hour on it. The second section of the Bill reads:—

"If the Minister for Industry and Commerce after consultation with an Advisory Committee nominated by him in conjunction with the Minister for Finance for the purpose of the section is satisfied that any loan proposed to be raised by any public authority or any association (corporate or unincorporate) of producers or consumers or of producers and consumers is calculated to promote a reduction in the retail prices in Saorstát Eireann," and so on.

Now, in the face of that he wants to know where do the farmers come in. He wants to know whether this Bill does anything for agriculture. I thought that Deputy Heffernan knew that farmers were producers. I did not expect that I needed to explain that at any great length to the Farmers' Party, but Deputy Heffernan evidently does not know that yet.

Now, this Bill gives a chance to the farmers, and I had hoped they would rise to the occasion. But if I were to judge from the Deputy's speech which I have heard—a speech which has depressed me——

You are bearing up very well.

Mr. HOGAN

The speeches made by the farmer Deputies show that their point of view is the old point of view. Make speeches, tall talk, and never come down to business. Deputy Cooper said that this Bill was a novel experiment. Undoubtedly it is a novel experiment. It is an experiment that was made in the interests of the producers and consumers. It was made in the light of the fact that the producer is getting a small price for his produce, and it was made in the light of the fact that the consumer was paying high prices for what he purchases.

To meet that we made this very novel experiment. We cannot go into trade. I suppose, if we did, Deputy Heffernan, being a good, sound conservative and sensible man would strongly object, and would call it socialism, and I am sure that Deputy Cooper would say the same thing. We think it would not be a good thing for us to go into trade, and we do not intend to. But we do aim at reducing any financial difficulties that might stand in the way of producers and consumers going into trade for the purpose outlined in this Bill. The object of the Bill is to reduce these difficulties to a minimum. We are making this novel experiment, and we are bringing in legislation to effect that purpose. Deputy Heffernan gets up and asks what about the farmers, and what are you going to do for them. We reduce apparently the financial difficulties to a minimum, but evidently is expected that we must do a good deal more. We are asked to put up schemes and to find out what the producers and what the consumers want; we are asked to find out what is in their minds, and after finding out what is in their minds they want us to sit down and prepare schemes for them. Now, I want to say quite frankly that this clause in the Bill is going to be quite useless unless the producers and the consumers rise to the occasion, and unless they put up watertight schemes we are not going to prepare schemes for them. It is not our business to do it. I agree with Deputy Cooper when he says that uninstructed philanthropy leads nowhere except to loss. We have had too much of uninstructed philanthropy up to the present in this country in connection with all these economic movements, and I really thought that we had got beyond that stage. I am of opinion that the farmers—the producers—and the consumers generally ought to have enough of confidence in themselves to be able to go into the markets in competition with any other class, and that they ought to be able to put up a watertight business scheme which will hold water and which any Advisory Committee could pass. If they cannot do that then the Bill is no good, and we can do nothing for them. You can go a certain distance to help people, but I would ask Deputies to remember that you can go only a certain distance. People must help themselves and no amount of rhetoric will get over that. I hope very sincerely that the farmers—the producers—and the consumers are accepting this Bill in a different spirit from that in which Deputy Heffernan dealt with it in the course of his speech.

If I might give one example: We have all heard of the milk scandal here. We all know that milk is being retailed in Dublin at from 2s. to 2s. 4d. a gallon. We know also that it is being sold in Belfast at 1s. 8d. per gallon. Why is that, I ask? I leave it to anyone who likes to answer that question. The answer, I say, is not to our credit as business men; it is not to the credit of the farmers of the Free State, nor is it to the credit of business people in the Free State that there should be such a contrast. If the County Dublin farmers will not work such a scheme, let the County Limerick farmers supply the Dublin market. In my opinion the County Limerick farmers should be able to supply the milk to Dublin. The transport charges are not worth speaking about, despite the fact that they are about 150 per cent. above the pre-war figures. I am hopeful that if the County Dublin farmers will not do it, that the Limerick farmers will waken up and organise themselves, and do what the County Dublin farmers neglect to do. I am sure that if they do so they will get the co-operation of the consumers and of a number of fairly well-educated, responsible people here in Dublin who are out of work at the present moment. These people will distribute the milk for them, and go into the same organisation with them. If the Limerick farmers do that, I am sure that as far as Dublin is concerned they will be able to get, not 9d. per gallon for their milk, as they are getting at present, or 1s. a gallon, but that they will be able to get 1s. 4d. per gallon, or thereabouts. I would like to point out that if the Limerick farmers do that it will not make the slightest difference to the butter industry. But I suggest that is a good proposition that I am putting forward, provided on the one hand that you have the producers—the farmers—and on the other hand a certain number of consumers, and a certain number of responsible people who may be unemployed at the present moment, and who are willing to go into the same organisation with the producer. That is what has happened in Belfast, where milk is being supplied at 1s. 8d. per gallon.

The organisation in Belfast did a good turn not only to the producers, but to the consumers. The producers in Belfast are getting, as a result of their organisation, from 3d. to 4d. per gallon more for their milk than they would otherwise get, while the consumer is getting the milk at 6d. per gallon less than he would get it without the organisation. When that can be done in Belfast, why should it not be done here? All that this Bill does is to make certain arrangements and to obviate certain possible financial difficulties that may be in the way of such a scheme being put into operation, and no Government can be expected to do more than that. Deputy Cooper described this Bill as a reality with what he called its promise. He said that he was in favour of control, and that that would be his way of bringing down prices. That I think, is a very debatable question.

If I may correct the Minister, I did not say that I was in favour of control, but rather that I was in favour of compulsory information and notification as to what prices were, and if that proved ineffectual in bringing down prices then control would have to come into operation.

Mr. HOGAN

First of all, the Deputy wants a fair price fixed. He wants a fair price fixed for every essential article; he wants inspection of books so as to find out profits, and then he wants punishment for profiteering. I say that is control, and I say further that it is control in a very rigid form. The issue as between control and the method proposed in this Bill for reducing prices is not a new issue, but is a very old one. I can say this, that control has failed in every country that it has ever been tried in. We are not better than other people, or more efficient than other people. The point I want to make is this, that control has failed in every country in which it has been tried. I admit that control may have succeeded in temporarily reducing prices, but where it has been tried over any reasonably long period it has been a failure, and of course, the reasons are obvious.

What is the Minister's view as to what constitutes failure?

Mr. HOGAN

My argument is that in the long run control has tended to increase prices, but I have stated that over any short period, and under abnormal circumstances, it may have succeeded in keeping prices at a certain level. Where control, however, has been tried over any reasonably long period it has been a failure.

Did the Minister tell the President that before he gave us his plan of figures and of the relation of prices to value?

Mr. HOGAN

You have to control prices or to do something else, or to attack the subject in some other way. Is there any other alternative? I do not know of any. You can either rule prices or say that goods cannot be sold for more than a certain price or you must take steps like these. You must foster competition to bring down prices; there is no other way. I was talking about control for the moment. You are to fix a fair price, let us say, for the month of June. I am sure the Deputy has some idea as to the difficulty of doing that, and as to what a delicate and subtle thing trade is. You are to fix a price at North Wall, or will you fix it in Dublin or in Cork, because once you fix the price it is rigid and must be maintained, and it is illegal to charge above it.

I would fix an index figure at Dublin, and I would have standardised figures for Cork, Limerick and so on, in relation to the index figure.

Mr. HOGAN

The Deputy would order an index figure for Dublin, and would have standardised figures for various parts of the country in regard to that index figure. There are almost impossible obstacles to doing that. Then it is suggested that you would inspect books and find out the profits, and I want to comment upon that. I am not saying whether I agree or disagree but Deputy Cooper advocates that. I can imagine that on another Bill I would find Deputy Cooper very much against such a thing, and I will watch him very closely in the future. Then we are to punish the profiteer. What is an unfair profit? You are to fix a price for every essential article, the price in Dublin and other centres in the country, working down to every little town, and after all that, and setting up all the necessary staff and machinery to do that, you are to find out the profits that are made on various essential commodities and say what a fair profit is. You are to say what is a fair profit on every commodity, and you are not going to stop with essential commodities in the cost of living schedule. You will have to go through to all other profits. Is that scheme possible? It has failed in other countries. They tried it in England during the war and they had controlled prices up to a certain point, but look at the result now.

It was withdrawn; you are looking at the result after it was withdrawn.

Mr. HOGAN

Look at the result now. It was long enough in existence in England to bring about the formation of rings, and it was long enough in Ireland to bring about the formation of rings. What has kept down prices in England? Prices are kept down lower in England than in Ireland. Prices in England were kept down by one big institution which has done more to keep down prices than everything else, and that is the Co-operative Wholesale Society of England, which has establishments in every big city in England, and even in a big country like England that has done more than anything else to keep prices down and to break rings. You had control in England which was a failure, I maintain, and which brought about rings there, and also here, and to meet the reaction of control in England and in Ireland you have, as the only effective method, the method that we are trying to foster in this Bill. That is the point as I see it.

On a point of explanation, may I say, to relieve the Minister of the depression he is suffering under, that we welcome the idea of co-operation, and we welcome this Bill so far as we understand it. But what I wished to convey was that we think the Minister should take advantage of the organisations as they are at present rather than that we should be constantly taunted with lack of organisation. We realise organisation is necessary, and the Minister must be aware that we are perfectly willing to do all we can to co-operate with him in any scheme he may have.

I think the Minister for Agriculture was a little unfair to Deputy Heffernan. It was obvious to every member of the Dáil that Deputy Heffernan was speaking of Section 1, dealing with the solution of unemployment, and the promotion of industries connected with agriculture which would have as one of its incidental effects the absorption of men from the unemployment market. The Minister thought it well to assume that Deputy Heffernan was only speaking of the clause relating to the reduction of prices. Something fell from the Minister that suggests to me that he is thinking of Section 2 as likely to effect a reduction in retail prices of agricultural produce, and also a reduction in the price of commodities which are essential to agriculture and that the term "essential commodities" may include essential commodities which are the tools of industry. I wonder does the Minister for Industry and Commerce take that into his consideration? I assume that "essential commodities" in Section 2 referred to articles of food in general consumption by everybody —men and women—in the country, such as are referred to in the new cost of living schedule. But now is it to be assumed that the farmers are desirous of a reduction in retail prices of essential commodities, to wit, food. I know the Minister for Agriculture thinks they are not. Let them get higher prices as wholesalers and there is also room for a lower price to the retailer. But I am not sure he is on very safe ground if he is thinking of immediate results. I am afraid that is where the Minister is a little too optimistic and confident.

Mr. HOGAN

I am neither one nor the other.

He quoted Belfast, and he quoted the British Wholesale Co-operative Society. I know something about both, and I know the Belfast Co-operative Society in regard to its milk distribution scheme has been working for not less than ten years to arrive at a state when they could purchase in two weeks in January 45,000 gallons of milk for retail distribution. I am quite sure it is safe to say that as a consequence of that organisation for distribution that the retail prices of milk generally have been kept on a lower level than they would have been if that institution did not exist. But it is not quite fair to say that they have reduced the price to the extent that the Minister has suggested. Unless his figures are later than mine he has rather overstated the case. I do not think it is true that the co-operative society in Belfast is able to pay to the farmer-producer prices at this time of the year much in advance of the prices received from the co-operative creamery by the farmer selling whole milk. I happen to have the figures for the year—that is, the proposed price to be paid to the farmers, and the prices at which the association would propose to retail its milk. These figures were dated several months ago, but it was the scheme for the succeeding year. The prices for June and July were 8d. per gallon. The farmers may not have accepted that contract, perhaps, I am not sure, nevertheless that was the scheme. There was a jump for August of 3d., and 4d. for September, and the prices would be 11d. for May, 8d. for June; 8d., July; 11d., August, 12d., September; 14d., October; November, December and January, 15d.; February, 14d.; March, 13d., and April, 12d.

Were these the prices to the farmer?

Yes, the prices to the farmer on the farm, and the retail prices were to be 20d., May, June and July; 20d., August and September; 24d. for October, and 24d. right through till April, during the whole of the winter months.

That is to say, 1s. 8d. for five months of the summer, and 2s. for seven months. The margin for cost of distribution is still great. But I think it is probably as low as the retail distribution of bottled milk, mainly twelve hours old, can be brought to. There is much in the contention implied in the Minister's statement that by organisation of milk distribution a great deal of the cost might be saved, and that the consumer will share with the producer any benefit from that saving. But you are not going to arrive at that this summer or next winter. This organisation has taken, perhaps, fourteen or fifteen years to develop, and certainly ten years to develop in the considerable way that it has now extended to. I know from very close knowledge that for a considerable time it was not a very profitable venture. One is not going to drive out competition and to supplant established dealers in the first few months of an undertaking of the kind. If this scheme is not going to be effective within a year, then it is not going to achieve the purpose, which is sought to be achieved, in time enough to do any real good. The same thing might well be said in regard to other commodities, but many other commodities can be handled by amateur organisations much easier than milk.

I would like to have a little more information on these proposals from the Minister before we pass the Second Reading. The speech of the Minister for Lands and Agriculture suggests that he has in mind the larger towns, and strange as it may seem, one hears complaints in regard to the prices of agricultural produce from the small towns almost as loud as one hears from the cities. That, undoubtedly, might be remedied by the direct supply from farmers' organisations to these towns, Unfortunately farmers have been trained to think that the outlet for agricultural produce is across the water, and all their organisation is directed to that end. Much of the foodstuffs sold in these shops, and for which high prices are demanded, is agriculture produce, but, unfortunately, agricultural produce from distant farms. I do not know whether the Minister has in mind giving encouragement to municipal organisations—urban and district councils— who are prepared to put up schemes regarding supplies of essential commodities in their own area, and whether the Minister for Local Government and Health is a party to that proposal. I expect that there is more likelihood of, shall I say, quick returns regarding the lowering of prices if assistance were given to local authorities to use their own organisation for the purpose of opening local markets and selling retail in these local markets, than by anticipating a regular business organisation of farmers and consumers.

The Minister for Justice yesterday said very pertinent things regarding the cost which the community has to bear and which arises from too many retail shops. He was thinking in terms of whiskey and porter, but the same remark applies just as strongly to all other commodities. If we desire, as a community, that we should be served by 10,000 shopkeepers instead of 1,000, I presume, as a community, we are willing to pay for it, and I think we ought to be willing to face the fact that we are not only being served expensively, but badly, by these 10,000 shops, instead of more efficiently and better by 1,000 shops, which could do it.

I suggest to the Minister that where a municipal authority is prepared to tackle the problem of opening markets or stores for the sale of essential foodstuffs, he should give that body every encouragement and try to persuade the Minister for Local Government and Health to give his general or particular consent. I do not agree with the Minister for Lands and Agriculture in his general condemnation of control and his assertion that control has increased prices and has led to the establishment of rings. One would think that we never heard anything of rings until the war. One would think that there never had been inquiries into trusts before the war, or that we never knew anything of meat and milk rings, rings of a variety of kinds, until the control which began during the war.

Mr. HOGAN

I never said that.

The Minister suggested that it was control which induced the development of rings. As a matter of fact, rings and trusts, endeavouring to control prices, were, and are, characteristic of the large-scale industry which we are working towards.

Mr. HOGAN

On a point of explanation, I never suggested that there were not rings before control; control increased that tendency.

Control improved organisation. Control led to closer and more efficient organisation undoubtedly. In a sense, it may be true to say that a greater number of rings developed because of control and of the organisation which control entailed. If the Minister will read, if he has not already read—I am sure he has—the reports of the Linlithgow Committee, he will find that the charges against trusts and rings are not quite as well supported as he would like. As a matter of fact, if one takes the milk ring that serves London, it is rather suggested that the highly organised method of distribution has kept down costs to the consumer and has helped to maintain prices to the producer. There are no rings in the competitive towns, the towns which compete with London for supplies—the rings, at least, are not as efficient. Nevertheless, the London milk ring, as it is called, can obtain from farmers, 150 miles from London, milk in competition with the suppliers who are supplying local cities and towns within 20 or 30 miles of London.

It is not to be assumed that the organisation which involves a large amount of capital is necessarily going to increase the price to the consumer. Many of us have talked that way, and, undoubtedly, the tendency of such an organisation is to fleece the consumer. Unless checked and controlled, such an organisation will fleece both consumer and producer. When you have a little manipulation on the Stock Exchange, and a re-organisation of the financial scheme of the company, then you will find, of course, a movement towards fleecing to a greater extent than before, the consumer and producer. There is nothing inherently bad in that organisation, which is generally denounced as a ring or a trust. It depends on whether it is controlled or not. That control may be public opinion; it may be legislation. But there is to be control. There again, I suggest to the Minister, when he denounces control, it depends entirely on how that control is applied and what kind of control it is.

Mr. HOGAN

Will the Deputy say how the London milk ring is controlled?

I suggest that control is fear of public opinion and a certain amount of competition. A good deal of milk is supplied in London, not through the milk ring. I am not suggesting that they have a monopoly of the milk supply for London. Of course, the competition of the smaller institutions helps to keep down prices to something like a reasonable level.

Mr. HOGAN

Would not the fact that the National Farmers' Union is very largely interested in the London milk ring, and that the consumers in London are also very largely financially interested in the London milk ring be the explanation?

The consumers in London are four or five millions of people.

Mr. HOGAN

It is exactly the kind of organisation we are trying to bring about here, of producer and consumer.

The Minister appears to agree that it is a ring of producers and consumers. We have arrived at this stage, that you may have a ring if that ring is controlled.

Mr. HOGAN

A good ring and a bad ring.

What apparently is desired is to eliminate unregulated competition by irresponsible people; the desire of unorganised people to live upon the community, not serving the community in the most advantageous way, but simply for the purpose of serving an individual and immediate interest; leaving the service of the community to be incidental, rather than the main purpose of the industry. However, I am getting away from the line I wish to take.

Mr. HOGAN

You are getting into a fallacy.

I am not convinced at all, from what I read in the Bill, that the scheme proposed regarding the method of reducing prices, is going to be effective. I would like to have much more information as to what is in the mind of the Minister. There are two proposals in regard to the reduction of prices. One is to grant loans and the other is to guarantee the repayment of principal and the payment of interest; or the repayment of principal, or the payment of interest. Would the Minister give us some light as to what is running through his mind in that respect? There is a limit to the sum to be voted under this section —£250,000. That £250,000, supposing it were used up by way of loan, will not go anything like so far as if it was mainly used up by way of guarantee of interest. I think it would be much more enlightening if we had the views of the Minister as to how this section would work. It was Deputy Heffernan, I think, who wanted the Ministry to be very careful regarding the class of undertaking that will be supported under this Bill. Of course, that is very good advice. Will the Minister give us a little more enlightenment on this matter? Has he any organisation in mind beyond that hinted at by the Minister for Lands and Agriculture? Does he know if there are any local governing authorities who would be willing to undertake, say, to supply coal at cost price, or of potatoes or bread? I know that there are certain bakeries in the smaller towns, the proprietors of which would be very glad to undertake to supply bread for these towns without any charge except interest or rent for the use of the bakeries. I suggest to the Minister that he should think very favourably of any proposals that come forward regarding the supply of bread and coal at cost price by the municipalities.

Coming to the other part of the Bill —the main part—this is intended to affect industry directly, and to reduce the number of unemployed. Deputy Cooper commented on the fact that he thought this Bill was slightly more favourable than the British Bill. view of this matter was that the sum fixed was small, but, no doubt, the Minister will reply that if it proves effective it can be enlarged.

I hope that is what is in his mind. I think it is the kind of proposal that will likely do good in the way of encouraging development and promoting a certain amount of employment in the country which would not otherwise be forthcoming. Again, I would like to know what is in the Minister's mind. Is he thinking of the larger, the more ambitious schemes? When we hear of the development of industry by bringing to the country the creators and directors of industry, that suggests those more ambitious schemes of development which will be centred in one or two places in the country, schemes probably which would come perhaps a little later but would come eventually without this particular inducement, schemes which might be expedited by the offer of the Bill which is only to operate for schemes which are brought into effect in twelve months.

I am inclined to think more value would be got out of the £750,000 by encouraging a large number of smaller operations which are at present waiting for capital and looking for the assistance which this kind of proposal would bring to them. Probably it will be said that the two can go together, but I hope the Minister is not going to rule out schemes for the development of quarries, or schemes of one kind or another, small schemes where ten, twenty, fifty or a hundred people might be employed in a very short time. I think if the many local schemes were taken into account, the country would be relieved greatly, and even the problem in the big cities would be also relieved by virtue of the relief in the country.

I hope the Minister will not be averse to any proposal that may be brought forward to amend the Bill in this direction, and that the conditions under which grants are made and loans are given—conditions imposed by the Ministry—would be made known to the Dáil, and that amongst those conditions will be one which will insist upon fair conditions of labour being granted to the employees in those concerns. The Minister, in opening the discussion, said that unemployment was not new, and that it was not confined to this country. He suggested that a Bill of this kind might settle the problem. I am sorry to think that that is not likely to be the case. There was unemployment before the war, and following the course of this Bill, and the development of industries under a scheme of this kind, we should inevitably, I think, have a recurrence of unemployment. There is no suggestion, for instance, in the Bill that the products of the industries which are to be promoted are going to find a market. There is no suggestion that it is those schemes of industrial development, productive schemes which aim at supplying the Irish market, that are to be given preference. There is no suggestion in the Bill, or in the Minister's speech that he would give special encouragement to industries which have as their objective the supplying of the Irish market, and thereby ensure that the producers will have a market for their produce. I am not sure whether combining those two sections there might not be embodied a proposal which would enable the local municipal store that I spoke of, to have, shall I say, a licence from the Ministry on condition that it would supply Irish-grown produce, and sell Irish-made articles and that the industries which are to be assisted under Section 1 will be such as will supply the consumers in this country who are also the producers, through those shops.

Thereby we can have concurrently the development of the productive industries supplying an Irish consuming public. Otherwise I can imagine a continuance of what unfortunately prevailed, that you will encourage Irish industry by State grants, by loans and guaranteed interest; people engaged in those industries will follow their usual bent and spend the money they obtain by their productive work on produce which is imported, and then half the value from the point of view of employment and national wealth production is lost. I suggest to the Minister for consideration that when you are developing productive schemes you have to bear in mind the market. If that market is to be abroad then the producers will have to face the competition of British and other equally well subsidised schemes. If you will aim at supplying an Irish market and giving encouragement to consumers through municipal stores to purchase Irish products, whether agricultural or industrial, then you will be running the two lines with something like a prospect of ultimate success and laying the foundation for a permanent industrial development, and a permanent assurance of a market.

While I am pleased that the Minister has endeavoured to help a project which will have the effect of reducing the cost of living, I believe that this Bill will not have as much effect as he thinks. We have heard this evening about the cost of certain essential commodities, and those of us who are particularly acquainted with the prices of those essential commodities wonder why responsible Ministers should stand up in the House and make statements—unknowingly, I admit—which are not founded on fact, but which are bandied about in the Press. They bring them forward here as conclusive proof of what can be gained by the Bill the Minister has put before us. As a matter of fact, milk is cheaper in Dublin than it is in Belfast. Milk is being sold in working-class districts in Dublin at 1/2 and 1/4 a gallon. You are not hearing a word about that, but that is the prevailing price of milk. 2/4 is the price which is charged to those gentry residing, say, in Merrion Square, where it is served at the door, but the price of country milk in Dublin, the supply of which amounts to several thousand gallons a day, is roughly from 1/2 to 1/4 a gallon.

I can give you definite proof of that. Everyone knows who has examined it that this question of the cost of living is a bogey. The Minister's statement that prices were reduced by the co-operative wholesale society in England is also a fallacy. Did they reduce the price of beer? They do not handle beer, and yet the price of beer in Dublin, where it is produced, is greater than in England. That argument does not hold water.

Take the price of bread. The price of flour in a small town in the country is 41/- per sack. When made into bread it is 75/-. Who is getting the 34/-? I want to point out where the rings are. Although the prices of essential commodities are not very high, there are rings of producers and rings of manufacturers and rings of labour. In Dublin to-day the highest prices are demanded for every service in the labour market. I am not saying that that is a bad policy, but it is the fact. I am not condemning it. I am only stating the reason. I am not saying labour is not right in demanding those wages. Milk is delivered in Belfast to the doors at 1/8. The wages of the man who delivers the milk there is about 60 per cent. of the wages a similar man gets in Dublin. You can see yourself that 8d. per gallon, spread over the distribution which that man covers, will hardly pay the difference in the wage. Therefore, we cannot get very much from this particular Bill.

I am surprised that the Minister for Agriculture should get up and speak about farmers not endeavouring to help the Government in reducing the cost of living, when he knows that I have been, in conjunction with the whole body of farmers, considering how, by reason of this Bill, we can best bring down the cost of essential commodities. I approach him on the matter and he gets up and says that the farmers do nothing. We were asking him all along for information. I asked him to-day for information but he has not got the expert information I required. I asked him what way milk was delivered in Leith, Manchester, Glasgow, Belfast and London. I wanted the details of delivery. He does not know, but he should get somebody behind him to tell him. He told me to go over and see. I am going over. But to say that we are not alive to the actualities of the situation is nonsense. I was on a Committee to-day dealing with the pig question, and the astonishing statement was made by a very large factoryowner that bacon was sold in large quantities wholesale in the city of Dublin at 78/- per cwt. That is about 8d. per lb., and you say the cost of living is high in Dublin. It is not. It cannot be, because there is too much competition amongst the shops. They cannot hold up the prices. The prices are approaching pre-war.

Where is the milk to be got at 1/2?

Summerhill, Britain Street, Parnell Street, North Wall, Sheriff Street and all along where the workers live. These are the places where the highest wages in the world are paid for the class of labour given. There is no use in talking about the cost of living being high, because it is not. How, under this Bill, are you going to reduce the cost of housing?

resumed the Chair.

We have heard about "capital expenditure for productive enterprises." I take it that under that I would be entitled to go to the Minister and ask him for £100,000 to start a brick works in order to make bricks to build houses. That would be productive enterprise. It would be reducing the cost of living. I would be entitled to produce bricks in order to reduce the cost of bricks. But I know very well that I would not be able to carry on. Do I not know that the labour market is unsettled and that there is no stability? Nobody is going to risk his money when he sees what is happening all over the place. Dissension in the labour world is doing as much harm as dissension in the political world. Those things do not make for stability. Nobody is going to venture the expenditure of money unless there is stable government and the ordinary stability for the people. A peculiar feature of our legislation is that last week we were considering how best to produce butter for export which would command the highest price. Here we have a Bill in which we are considering how best to get the lowest price. It is most extraordinary. The dead meat industry has been mentioned. What will that do in reducing the cost of living? Nothing. The cost of living in the city is as cheap as it is in any part of Britain. There is a good class trade to be got, and I think the farmers might get more for their produce if they endeavoured to cater for the better class trade. We have got the trade of the workman— a good, sound trade where you are paid every day. That is the best way to do trade. But we ought to try and cater for the better class trade, where you must give credit and charge more.

I am asking the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he would be good enough to shoulder a scheme of ours and allow us to deliver milk direct to the consumer in proper bottles. It is under consideration, and when it is ready we will come forward with it, and I am sure the Minister for Agriculture will support it and will not talk about 2s. 4d.

Mr. HOGAN

At 1s. 2d.

No; 1s. 8d.

Mr. HOGAN

You said 1s. 2d.

The co-operative societies bought it at 8d. and sold it at 1s. 8d. in Belfast.

They bought it at 15 and sold it at 24.

They get 15 per cent. profit in the winter, when milk does not turn sour and when there is no waste. We will do the same with the help of the Ministry's money. I really do not think that there is anything in it, because if you have good solvent security and go to a banker you will get the money. If this Bill means that we will get the money at a less rate of interest it will help us, but if it means that we have to get the bank rate of interest it will not help us, as we can get the money without Government help. We can get money at 6 per cent., but if the Minister can get it for us at 4 per cent. he will be helping us. We can get the money ourselves as long as we have credit. I appreciate the difficulties there are in a measure of this kind. I appreciate the value of any Bill that will regulate prices. We investigated prices in Dublin, but we found we had no power, especially in regard to one particular trade. Competition is the only means by which prices can be brought down. By controlling prices you stabilise prices. I confess, as a producer, that I got the best prices in my life at the time when the price of milk was controlled. This is a step in the right direction if it helps producers in the country, and if it enables facilities to be given to bring the produce to the doors of the consumer, it will have the effect of lowering the cost of living three or four points. By that means there would be a saving on the bonuses given to Government officials which would cover the loss on wild-cat schemes.

I think it comes as a surprise to many members of this House, and to the public in general, to find that one member gets up here and states that the cost of living has been reduced and that milk can be sold in Dublin at 1s. 2d. a gallon.

It is sold.

I would like to know from Deputy Wilson what the County Board of Health in Wicklow are paying?

10d. a gallon.

I will prove that there is a Deputy of this House supplying milk to a merchant in Dun Laoghaire at 1/2, and the merchant charges 2/8.

On a point of explanation, I stated that the contract price paid by the County Board of Health in Rathdrum is 10d. a gallon, and the Deputy has not contradicted it.

Would anybody tell me what the price of milk in County Wicklow has to do with the Bill?

It shows the necessity there is for Section 2.

I agree as to the necessity, but you need not prove it.

I am sure we would all be delighted to secure the necessities of life as cheaply as Deputy Wilson and the members of his party get them. His whole argument is against the cost of labour and rings. We hold that there is a milk ring in the city of Dublin, and not alone do they supply milk at exorbitant prices, but they christen that milk with Vartry water. Farmers in the country have been prosecuted for this. Deputy Wilson stated that there is competition. Where is there any competition amongst shopkeepers either here or in the country? They are all in the rings. I hold that this Bill will not reduce the cost of living or decrease unemployment. We want Bills that will give employment and give work to those who are without it. There is talk here of the price of beer and other things. Where is the man who is unemployed to get money for beer and other things? This is a bigger problem than many other problems which the Government have had to face, and we appeal to them to face it while there is yet time and before they come on with their other Bills. Bills are being rushed through here, but the most important Bill of all is being neglected, and that is one to provide work throughout the country. If the Government do not face this problem we will probably have to take a different attitude from that so far taken by us, and then it will probably be too late for Deputy Wilson to get up here and make such statements as he has just made.

Like you, sir, I am wondering what relation the question of milk prices on the various public boards has to do with this Bill. I think Deputies have been inclined to pay too much attention to Section 2 of the Bill. I am rather doubtful as to its potency or as to whether it will do anything to reduce prices. I think that Clause 1 is an important clause, and the Ministry are to be congratulated upon bringing this Bill forward. As we have said repeatedly from these benches, we do not advocate unemployment benefit as such, and we do not want the dole. We want employment for the workers in the country, and we want a feeling of security in the country, and we believe that it is only by measures such as this now before the House that that feeling of security is going to be brought about. The first section is, in my opinion, a bit ambiguous.

I am sorry I was not here when the Minister was speaking on the Second Reading, but I would like some information when he is concluding, and I would like to know what are the schemes that local authorities are supposed to put before this Advisory Committee. I am rather doubtful as to the interpretation that this Advisory Committee will put on certain schemes. Take the case where there is a cement factory, as in Wexford. This cement factory's misfortunes have been repeatedly mentioned in the Dáil. We have had great difficulty in keeping it open. It is responsible for the employment of about sixty men. I want to know if certain public bodies took up the question of concrete road-making, and if they applied for a loan to do that work, would that be considered a proper scheme under this Bill? It would be providing employment in a dual sense. It would be employment direct by the local bodies concerned, and it would be a fillip to that particular industry which is at a very low ebb. I would like to know from the Minister if he thinks the Advisory Committee would sanction such schemes as that. Deputy Wilson states that this Bill will not help the dead meat industry. I differ from him in that opinion.

On a point of explanation, I said that the dead meat industry would not reduce the cost of living.

That is the point I was coming to, for if you helped an industry such as that which is carried out on co-operative lines, to my mind you would help to bring down the cost of living. I know something about the dead meat industry. We have a bacon factory in Wexford, and it is hit very hard at the moment by rings established by the old-established firms. These firms are in a position to pay more for pigs at the moment and to sell at a lesser price, because of these rings. I think this is being done only to crush out the co-operative industry. It is not a paying proposition as carried on now. I think that where these co-operative firms are struggling, that this Bill is going to be of great advantage to them, and that eventually it will tend to the breaking up of these particular rings which the old-established firms have formed. I hope when the Minister is replying he will give us a better interpretation of Clause I., especially as to the powers of local bodies, and what schemes they will be empowered to undertake under that section.

I think myself that a good deal of the legislation that we have been dealing with during the past few weeks has not received proper attention, and that this Bill will remain as one of the most important Bills that has been placed before this Dáil. I think that it certainly can be made so. It lies more or less in the hands of the Irish people themselves as to what is to be done to cure the problem of unemployment, and, if I might say so, to use a word that was very familiar in the political history of not long ago, this Bill is Sinn Fein in the best possible sense. Reference has been made to the connection between this Bill and the prices that prevail and that affect the cost of living. Over a year ago I stated exactly what I felt myself in that regard, and presented my hostages in that matter. I would like just to read exactly what I then said. It was in the note to the Report of the Commission on Prices where, dealing with the recommendation of that Commission that all traders should be required to display a list of prices, I stated—and the Dáil agreed—that it was more and more obvious "That this problem of prices was involved in a much larger economic question. What especially struck me in some of the evidence given before the Commission was that which dealt with this very problem. It was fairly clear (as clear as evidence of such a nature could make it) that very large profits were being charged by certain traders. But it was also clear that some of these traders were barely able to maintain a livelihood. The large percentage of profit, that is to say, had become necessary because of the large number of persons competing with one another for the same business within a very small area. I wish to draw attention to this, because it implies an inversion of what is usually supposed to be the case. It is usually supposed that great competition will reduce prices, whereas, so far as distribution is concerned, excessive competition means that there are many to share a limited amount of business, and that each of the many must, therefore, increase his or her profits in order to make a livelihood. I have, therefore, been driven to the conclusion that the higher rate of living in Ireland, by comparison with England, is due to the fact that there is a higher percentage of persons dependent on distributive profits rather than on production. Any country in which so large a percentage of the population is engaged, as in Ireland, in the distributive trade, must necessarily, I believe, be more expensive in which to live. The only real way in which to mend this fault is to create productive employment, in which to draw off those who are now engaged in, or dependent on, merely distributive profits."

I read that because I stated there just as clearly as I could what I think is the most important element in the economic configuration of our national life, which I believe this Bill will help to improve. It is impossible to have a reduction of prices so long as there are so many persons engaged in a purely distributive business. The right method is to increase the purchasing power of the people themselves by increasing the national production, and the value of this Bill is that it sets out to achieve that end by the method that has already proved successful in England. This Bill is not a new one. Before I touch on the Bill itself I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the conviction that has been expressed by many speakers here to-night, in which I fully share, that the right method has been taken by increasing production rather than by merely controlling prices, and that the method attempted in the Bill is going to be a very long circuit, and that it is not going to yield any fruit within a measurable distance of time, and if it does yield fruit it will only be by national co-operation. Therefore, I think we will have yet to return, though I agree with the Bill, to the question of a definite control of prices. Nevertheless, the Bill attacks this problem at the very fundamentals. It is a measure that has already proved itself to be successful in Great Britain, and I would like to draw the attention of the Labour Party to the fact that the prime origin of this Bill is the British Trades Facilities Act, and that the real origin of the British Trades Facilities Act was the fact that British Labour raided the then British Premier in 1921, at Gairloch, and it was as a result of the conference and consultations held there with Labour that that Act, or the father of this Bill was first framed. Dealing with this conference quite the most able exponent of the British Trades Facilities Act, Sir Lynden Macassey, who had examined and dealt with its working, has said that:

"The general opinion of the experts summoned to those conferences was that a large amount of new constructional work (extension and electrification of railways, construction of docks, extension of manufacturing works, etc.), which would normally have taken place during the war, still required to be carried out, but that such work was being held up by the high costs of manufacture and the high rates which had to be paid for money. It was felt that although much of this work was urgently needed for the proper service of the public handling of trade, the placing of orders might be deferred indefinitely in the hope of a fall of prices, and meanwhile the Government would be compelled to go on paying unemployment doles. If, however, cheap money could be provided, one at least of the main obstacles would be overcome, and this might in many cases afford sufficient inducement to commence the works immediately."

It was as a result of that that the British Trade Facilities Bill was first framed in 1921. It was followed a year later by another Bill of the same kind, and the Bill which we have before us now is practically line for line and word for word a copy of the earlier measure in all parts, except Section 2, which is the only matter in regard to which, for the first time, a new element has been introduced.

In Great Britain, in this Bill the pivot of the system is the Advisory Committee, to which the Minister drew the attention of the Dáil, and it has been referred to several times. I would like to ask him a definite question in regard to this Advisory Committee that I believe to be of very great importance. I find it has been of great importance, and has been proved of very great importance in the history of the measure from which this measure is derived. In introducing the Trade Facilities Bill the British Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a definite pledge I would like to ask the Minister if he is prepared to renew that definite pledge that was given on the other side. The pledge was that once a committee had been constituted the Government would not interfere in any manner with its discretion. The reason for that pledge was that it should never be able to be alleged, rightly or wrongly, that the Government had been taking decisions owing to political influences that might have been brought to bear. The method that is being adopted in Great Britain at the present moment in regard to the Trade Facilities Bill is that the committee having been created and a sum of money named, then the committee proceeds to expend that sum, and its discretion is not interfered with at any point. I ask that question for this reason. The Minister spoke about the committee submitting its decisions for Departmental consideration and approval. Now if these words of his are any indication of the method that is going to be adopted I would like to point out in the first place that it is quite contrary to the practice adopted elsewhere as a result of experience. I think, without any prejudice in the matter in favour of earlier experience, that once the Advisory Committee has been appointed, the committee should be left alone and left entirely to deal with these matters on certain principles which it will itself formulate.

Both in regard to Sections 1 and 2, the success of the Bill will depend almost entirely on the Advisory Committee. Questions have been asked here to-day as to how the Advisory Committee will expend that money It is not a very large sum that is placed at its disposal. I referred earlier to certain comments made by a British publicist and public servant who has some amount of experience in regard to the Trade Facilities Act there, and he stated exactly how this measure in Great Britain is administered. He says —"The Committee keeps always before it the fact that it is a custodian of the Public Purse." I wish to emphasise the words that follow, because their importance cannot be over-stated. He proceeds: "And that much more harm than good would be done by recommending guarantees in cases in which the risks are greater than the principles of sound commercial prudence would accept. It does not feel that it is called upon to recommend a guarantee in cases of a speculative nature for which even in normal times, the promoters would have found difficulty in raising money. Nor does it think that it ought to recommend guarantees to relieve undertakings from financial embarrassments incurred through lack of ordinary commercial foresight on the part of those responsible for their management. A guiding rule is that the Government's liability should be as small as possible, and that a good commercial security should be obtained in every case."

Guarantees in all matters are, of course, only guarantees in respect of loans, whether in loan issue or direct loan, and never in any case in regard to ordinary stock issue. That answers the point, I think, that Deputy Wilson asked. The main benefit conferred is that a cheaper rate of interest is charged upon such loan money than it would get if it were issued ordinarily in the market. The English rate at the present moment for all issues under the Trade Facilities Act come between 4½% and 4¾% on debenture stock and debentures, whereas some of the enterprises that have taken advantage of this would not be able to issue much under 6 per cent. and 6½ per cent., with the result that the benefit given to enterprise has increased production to a very considerable extent, and by increasing production has done two other things. By cheapening production it has made the commodity cheaper to the final consumer, and by increasing production by that cheapening, it has done a great deal to mend, if not to cure, the unemployment problem. Incidentally it has also this further benefit, that it has increased the purchasing power of all workers. One has only to look back on the history of Great Britain within the last three years and to imagine how it would have managed without the Trade Facilities Bill having regard to the huge number of enterprises it has taken up and supported by guaranteeing loans which they have asked for, to realise how considerable has been the benefit which that Bill has conferred. Nevertheless, it is true that the conditions in Ireland are vastly different from the conditions in Great Britain. Great Britain is a great industrial country; Ireland is not. I would have liked that the Minister would have given some indication of how he thinks the Advisory Committee would devise its policy in regard to the kind of enterprise which it would foster by guarantees of the sort indicated in the Bill. I think that is an important matter.

I have referred to Great Britain, and one cannot help referring to it because this Bill is an attempt to take a measure first framed for those different conditions and apply it to this country. Therefore, in order to discover its effect in this country, it is right to take its history from what has been the experience elsewhere, and turning to that experience, one knows that a great many enterprises have been started by Great Britain outside England altogether. That condition does not prevail in regard to us in the last degree. At the present moment I believe this Bill, rightly administered and rightly co-operated with, should achieve and could achieve another very great benefit to which sufficient attention has not been drawn. As I said the other day, 26 years ago we turned the adverse balance that had prevailed for half a century against us, and we began to export in cash value more than we imported. Within the past two or three months that situation has entirely changed. For the next two or three months, while agriculture is still exporting, we can rely upon that fair balance being maintained, but after that, at the end of August or September and with the coming of winter, unless something has definitely been done to increase production between now and then, the situation for the winter will not be a very pleasant one to contemplate.

It is right that we should look at the matter frankly now. It is not decrying the case. It is merely looking facts in the face, and it is merely recognising that the situation is as it is. Credits are being called in all over the country, as the Minister knows, and as any bank will state. Between now and September or October, some measures will have to be taken and could, under this Bill, be taken, if it be rightly pushed and co-operated in, such as will increase our production and enable us to rescue a situation that has its serious element. While the Minister was speaking I asked him if he would indicate, in regard to section 2, the kind of associations that he referred to, and he, with the marked approval of the Minister for Lands and Agriculture, deftly turned aside and declined to indicate the kind of associations he had in mind. Nevertheless, when it came to the turn of the Minister for Lands and Agriculture, he was not so discreet or so tactful. He indicated he was thinking definitely of the kind of organisation that is known as co-operative.

Section 2, I take it—and it has generally been interpreted—is the first statement by a Government in this country that it is going definitely to support co-operative methods. I make no comment; I leave it at that. I read out here a few moments ago some of the principles that have prevailed in regard to the administration of this measure elsewhere, some of the principles that the Advisory Committee will hold before it, I take it for certain, in regard to section 1. That is to say, that no loans will be given except on grounds of sound commercial prudence, and that no guarantees will be given to relieve undertakings from financial embarrassments incurred through lack of ordinary commercial foresight. That will prevail, I take it, in regard to section 1. The point I wish to emphasise is that it should be held to prevail with equal firmness in regard to section 2.

Many a co-operative society has been established, and because of local favouritism, managers were appointed who should not have been appointed, and, as a consequence, these societies have found themselves, and do find themselves to-day, faced with failure. Societies of that kind, I take it, are societies that will not come in for benefit under this Bill, unless the Minister or the Government in some way exercise a continued control over societies of that kind. I would like to ask the Minister, in conclusion, if, in regard to Section 2, to which so much attention has been drawn, he would be inclined to favour the course of action that would not be so necessary in regard to Section 1. Loans might be guaranteed under Section 1 for definitely productive enterprises, and those enterprises would then be left to their own devices. If loans are going to be guaranteed under Section 2 to certain co-operative enterprises, where the same responsibility for failure does not prevail as in regard to other matters, there should be some principles laid down and some control and supervision exercised to see that right methods of business are exerted in the general management of societies of that kind.

This debate has, unfortunately, wandered rather much, and possibly I may be fortunate in having a definite time limitation put upon me in my attempt to reply to the many points raised. Deputy Heffernan first criticised this measure from the point of view that it has not got, in his imagination, things which are actually in the text of the Bill. Having criticised it on that basis, he proceeded to read me a lecture as to what should not be done and what should not be allowed under the Bill. He pointed out that unless the Bill were altered all sorts of wild-cat schemes would be formulated and put forward for approval. The checks in the Bill are rather numerous. There is one big check, and that is that the whole thing is subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance. If Deputy Heffernan or any other Deputy thinks that wild-cat schemes are going to pass an expert Advisory Committee, the Department of Industry and Commerce, and the Department of the Ministry of Finance, I am afraid that a certain amount of the talk that has previously been heard in the Dáil relating to the Minister for Finance has been more or less hypocritical. The checks, as I have said, are numerous. They are possibly too restrictive.

They may be tame-cat schemes in those circumstances.

They will certainly be tame-cat schemes by the time they get through all those barriers. The checks are indeed acknowledged by some as unduly restrictive, but they are necessary to safeguard public funds. Deputy Cooper has asked if at some part of the Committee Stage I could give the names of those whom it is my intention to appoint on the Advisory Council; but he rather recanted later, and he thought the giving of the names would not help the progress of the Bill.

I said I would not promise it would.

I do not propose to give names, but if Deputy Cooper thinks the Bill could be improved by inserting qualifications for members of the Advisory Council, corresponding to the qualifications set down for members of the railway tribunal, that is a matter that we could consider and debate in Committee. Deputy Cooper also raises a point as to the President's promise on how far this Bill carried out the pledge he gave, and he divided what he thought should be done under three heads—(1) that prices be published; (2) that power be taken to inspect books; and (3) that power be taken to punish profiteers where profiteering was proved. That was the scheme considered and rejected. This is the favoured proposition instead of that other scheme.

All the authorities I could get and all the authorities we consulted did tend to the conclusion that there is not much good in publishing prices in this country at the moment unless you go further and take some power to fix prices. If you proceed to take power to fix prices you must go further still, and you must fix those prices in every town on all essential commodities at every stage of the passage of those commodities from the producer to the consumer, and there are very many stages. There were two ways suggested. One was the setting up of a Government Department, with a whole staff of accountants, customs authorities and officials, and the second was the setting up of a Board and the supplying to that Board of funds in order to open stores on their own. These two plans have not been found successful in their working in other countries. The Minister for Agriculture stated that control had done away with competition; that it had created rings, and the only way to burst rings was to encourage competition. And it is hoped to encourage competition under this Bill. That argument of the Minister for Agriculture was countered by Deputy Johnson, but I have here, and I have given great consideration to it, the Report of a Commission set up by a Decree of the French Government in 1920 to investigate price variations, their effect on the cost of living, and the cause. That Committee set its finger on many causes of the continuous high cost of living in France, but one thing they did single out definitely was the fixing of prices. They singled that out for special comment, and said that it was to a degree more than any other thing responsible for the high cost of living in France.

The Minister, of course, is aware that the scheme, both in France and in England, during the war, of fixing prices was to fix a price of a kind which would encourage production in those places, and they therefore fixed fairly high margins for manufacturers.

The continuance of the system was singled out as one of the causes of the high cost of living. But there was one point that the Minister for Lands and Agriculture did not make, and that in deference to Deputy Cooper's argument, I think, should be given. These objections, however, apply only to the fixing of prices by coercive methods. It is pointed out that price fixing, in the sense of indicating to the public the reasonable price which should be asked, is in a different category and may be very valuable. A wider education of the public is urged as the surest means of adjusting price and eliminating abuses. But they went on to say that it would require considerable publication before any mere indication of prices would be of any value, and I found myself faced with the necessity for taking some steps which held out an immediate prospect of a reduction of prices. If I have to go on the lines indicated by the French Committee, which urges a wider education of the public as the surest means of adjusting prices and eliminating abuses——

Can the Minister say if the French Government acted on the Report of that Committee, and if so, is he aware that the cost of living in France continues to be very high, and that possibly the Committee were wrong?

If the Deputy asked did the Government proceed to educate the French public and have they succeeded in their efforts, I would say that it is obvious that the Committee did not expect that this would be successful in that regard for a considerable time, because the delay is what they urged against that, and that is what I urge against anything of that sort here. If we had a well-informed public, a well-educated public, there would be no necessity to bring in any coercive measure, or no necessity for a non-coercive measure such as this. Deputy Johnson raised the point of the essential commodities. As far as was the intention of the Department, all essential commodities—and I think I stated that in opening—would mainly mean the 68 commodities on which the cost of living is based. Other commodities may be added.

I knew you did, but the Minister for Lands and Agriculture suggested something different.

Well, I am sure that the Minister for Lands and Agriculture did make another suggestion, but the Minister for Lands and Agriculture does not appear in this Bill.

Is he not an essential commodity?

He has not his price.

I do not suppose it is possible, under the ruling made recently by the Ceann Comhairle, to go into the question of the milk supply in Belfast, and I do not intend to go into it. But one other question was raised on that matter. Deputy Johnson advanced an argument that it had taken a long time to bring this co-operative society to perfection, that we wanted a speedy method here, and consequently we could not draw any lesson from Belfast. I thought that one of the advantages of belonging to a society was that you were able to take advantage of improvements effected by earlier generations, or even by an earlier period in your own generation. It took many years to find out how to stand an egg on its head, but I can do it any day now. It took a considerable time to bring a fountain pen to perfection, but I can use one any time. We do not need to go back and repeat all the processes up to the final stage, and if we were to go on that basis I think that measures could be ruled out of consideration on the ground that time would be necessary. Deputy Johnson raised the other point with regard to the moneys under section 2, and submitted as his suggestion that the amount of money would go further when applied on the guaranteeing of loans than when set forth definitely as a loan. That has been adverted to and the Bill allows that. The Bill is based on that.

Yes. What I am anxious to know is what is the amount of the moneys. The Bill, of course, has been drawn up on the British Bill.

Section 2 never appeared in any English Bill. There is no section in any British Bill in which there is any division of moneys into actual loans and the guarantee of loans. The aggregate capital amount of the loans granted under this section shall not exceed the sum of £50,000, and the total aggregate capital amount of loans granted under the section shall not exceed the sum of £250,000. I think that that indicates very clearly the department's mind, that £200,000 had better be given to the guaranteeing of loans, and the sum of £50,000 only in respect of actual loans, and to that extent we are in agreement with Deputy Johnson's view. The question of schemes promoted by county councils and municipalities, and as to how they would be received, has been raised both by Deputy Corish and Deputy Johnson. These schemes will be most welcome. They are allowed for in the Bill, and there are certain considerations affecting such schemes which would give the Minister for Finance—I will not say pleasure, because the Minister for Finance never has any pleasure in lending money or in guaranteeing money—but I gathered from him that schemes framed in such a way would meet with much greater approval, as far as he is concerned, than other schemes.

Does the Minister mean schemes promoted in such a way as I suggested?

Well, the scheme that the Deputy suggested is a scheme that would receive approval. The Advisory Committee will have a certain amount to do with its interpretation, but so far as the Department is concerned it is a type of scheme that would be favoured. I have been asked several times what was in my mind with regard to this Bill. What was in my mind was not that I should suggest schemes to outside bodies and to corporations, and that they should then come along with my scheme, perhaps put in a somewhat better way, and present it for approval. This is a scheme definitely to get away from, and to do away with, the necessity for Government interference. It is proposed to interest the people outside, and when they show enthusiasm and initiative, and come along with a proper scheme, that scheme will then, if passed by the Committee, get the necessary loan or guarantee.

How far will the Advisory Committee be left to its own discretion?

I think we will have to take all these points in Committee.

There are certain points I must omit, but that is one point I intend to come to. The other points raised by Deputy Johnson were that conditions as to the loans should be revealed to the Dáil, and that these conditions should include one as to rates of pay for labour, and he asked whether that would be provided.

A fair wage clause?

To that I would like to retort to him that I would first like to know what is in the Deputy's mind, and when I see that revealed in an amendment I will be better able to answer him. The question of Irish manufacture and whether it is for home or foreign market will come into the terms and conditions. The schemes will rank in order, according to whether Irish manufacture is required, and whether it is for the home market or not. A very definite clause in the Bill will be the clause with regard to the articles manufactured or produced in the Saorstát. I hesitate to think that Deputy Johnson has not read any Bill, but that phrase seems to have escaped his attention.

I read the Bill, and what I am driving at is the market which Irish manufacture will supply.

I will not deal with the point raised by Deputy Figgis, but I will deal with the matter as to whether or not I will renew the pledge given in the British House of Commons. These are the words: "That a pledge given in the British House of Commons to the effect——"

On a point of order, I would like to——

We cannot have points of order now. The Minister must be allowed to conclude.

I am not going to give any pledge of the sort, that the advisory committee, when set up, will be absolutely independent and that schemes passed by it will not have to come in under the censure either of my Department or the Minister for Finance. The committee is advisory. Schemes will be passed by them and put forward for consideration. To Deputy Figgis's question I say "No," and I do not intend in any way to depart from the finality of that answer.

Question: "That the Bill be read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.
Committee Stage fixed for Tuesday, 1st July, 1924.
AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE took the Chair.
Barr
Roinn