I am rather surprised that the Minister for Industry and Commerce did not think it desirable to give the House, in asking the Dáil to vote this money, a review of the work done by his Department during the year. I have made certain inquiries and have been unable to discover that the Department of Industry and Commerce has, in fact, done anything during the year except carry on. It has administered the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Factory Acts, and carried out other statutory obligations resting upon it, but, beyond that, it appears to have been content to allow the position this year to remain in all respects similar to the position of last year. When the Estimate was under consideration last year, we discussed a number of the sins of omission and commission for which the Department was responsible. There has been no repentance, apparently, and the sins are in exactly the same state of gravity that they were in twelve months ago. None of the legislative acts which were promised on that occasion has been forthcoming. None of the projects which the Minister outlined for the development of industry and the removal of obstacles from the path to progress have been put into operation. I do not know whether or not the inactivity of the Department of Industry and Commerce is due to the fact that the Minister in charge of the Department is also in charge of another important Department of State. We are aware that the Minister is also responsible for External Affairs, in respect of which Department there was considerable activity during the past twelve months. The Minister was engaged attending conferences abroad and conducting negotiations in respect of a number of matters at home, and one is forced to conclude that the time he was compelled to give to that work made it impossible for him to attend properly to the work of the other Department for which he is responsible. If that be the case, it is certainly very desirable that the two Ministries should not be joined in the one person, but that the Department of Industry and Commerce should be placed in charge of an individual with no other concern, so that the pressing problems with which it should be dealing will have a chance of being attended to.
The Estimate for this year shows a small net increase on that of last year, the increase being mainly accounted for under the head of salaries, wages and allowances. I am particularly interested to note that it is proposed to increase slightly this year the staff at the disposal of the Director of Statistics. I do not know if the increase in the staff of the Statistics Branch will help us to get the remaining census volumes any more quickly than they would otherwise be forthcoming. There are, I think, three or four census volumes still to be published. At one time the Minister was under the impression that all the information ascertained by that census of 1926 would be available and published before the end of the year 1928. He said, in discussing the Estimate for his Department in the year 1928 (Volume 23, column 1399, Official Report): "It is hoped that the final reports of this census, including the figures in respect of all the industries and in respect of agriculture, will be issued before the end of the year." Last year he told us that certain unexpected causes of delay had arisen, and that his original estimate was found to be impossible of fulfilment. He did leave us under the impression, however, that the greater part of the remaining information would be published before the end of 1929. It has not been published. I am particularly concerned about the failure to produce the volume relating to unemployment. In April, 1929, I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, by Parliamentary Question, when he expected the volume would be published, and he said that it would be published within four months. A couple of weeks ago I asked him why the volume had not been published, and he told me that there was no undue delay in preparing the information for publication, but that it had been decided to include in the same volume certain information relating to industries, and he could not give a definite estimate as to when it would appear. When discussing this matter last year, I questioned the value of figures relating to unemployment in the year 1926, if not published until three years later. Obviously it would be unsafe to base any conclusions concerning the policy to be adopted in 1930 upon information four years old.
I have no doubt that the volume, when published, will disclose that in the year 1926 a very serious unemployment situation existed. We will be told, however, that in the intervening period we have turned the corner, and that no argument based on these statistics is valid. It is even possible that the decision to include in the same volume statistics relating to industries has been taken in order to cover up the essential figures relating to unemployment in a mass of irrelevant matter. Certainly the attitude of the Department to the publication of this information has been most unsatisfactory. The figures, when published, will be of certain historic interest, and will be valuable when the next census is taken for the purpose of comparison. But the value which they might have had if published immediately after they had been ascertained has been destroyed by the delay. There are other volumes also due—I do not know quite how many. The only one to which reference has been made at any time in the House is that relating to the Gaeltacht. I should be glad if the Minister would tell us what other volumes it is intended to publish, and when they are likely to appear. Does he expect that the work relating to the census of 1926 will be completed in the present year?
It is not only in relation to the publication of census information that the Department of Industry and Commerce has been very lax. There are a number of other matters in respect of which its inactivity deserves to be mentioned. Before leaving the question of the census, however, I should like to pay tribute to the nature of the volumes which have been published. The information given has been set out in a very clear manner, and it is quite obvious that great ability has been brought to bear upon the work. As a result of the census—particularly the census of industrial production, which proceeded at the same time— we have a great volume of information concerning the economic conditions of this State which we had not got heretofore. My only criticism in connection with this matter is the delay which has occurred in making that information available. I think it would have been much better policy for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to have provided the Director of Statistics with an adequate temporary staff in the years 1927 and 1928 to ensure the speedy publication of the information than that a small staff should be employed for a longer period.
There are many matters which have been, in one form or another, before the Department of Industry and Commerce for a number of years in respect of which no action has been taken. One of the matters to which I refer is the report of the Tribunal on Prices. This Tribunal was established in July, 1926, and submitted its report to the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the 18th October, 1927. That Tribunal was established as a result of a popular agitation. There was considerable dissatisfaction with the prices that were being charged for articles of common consumption, and there was a belief prevalent that profiteering was in progress. The Tribunal was set up at a cost of £1,667. It went to very great pains to get evidence relating to conditions under which certain articles of food were sold and the prices that were usually charged for them. As Deputies will remember, it possessed the same power as a High Court, and it went so far as to commit a prominent official of a trade organisation in Dublin who refused to answer certain questions which the Tribunal put to him.
They stated in their report that only the knowledge that they possessed these drastic powers secured for them, in their opinion, the desired information in many cases. Their report revealed that a very serious situation existed. They pointed out, and produced the necessary evidence to demonstrate, that in certain areas consumers were paying too high prices for particular articles of food, such as bread, meat, milk and similar foodstuffs of common consumption, and that these excessive prices were due to the fact that unreasonable margins of profit were being secured by traders. They went further and stated that consumers were being robbed, not merely by excessive prices, but also by bad measure.
For example the report referred to a test which had been carried out on bottles used for the sale of milk in Dublin. As Deputies know, the practice of selling milk in bottles has grown very considerably in recent years. A test of these milk bottles showed that on the average the pint bottles were ten per cent short of a pint. In some cases, the bottles were actually only three-quarters of a pint, but the average deficiency was ten per cent. They pointed out, also, that in the case of non-perishable foodstuffs sold in packets, such as tea, dried peas, salt and similar articles, the net weight of the food-stuff in the packet was frequently less than that stated on the outside. In the case of bread, the Tribunal demonstrated that excessive prices were being charged at Dublin, Cork, Galway, Sligo, Dundalk, Waterford and Kilkenny—in fact in every city which they visited except Limerick. In the case of meat, they stated that there was no doubt that not profits were excessive and that retail prices generally could afford an appreciable reduction. That statement was made in respect of every city and town in which they carried out investigations. In the case of milk, they reported and produced evidence to prove that the prices charged in Dublin were, to use their own words, "at an unreasonably high level." In the case of butter, they showed that certain traders charged disproportionate rates for butter sold in small quantities. That is, the poorer section of the community which bought its butter in small quantities was being charged at rates altogether in excess of those charged to the better-class customers who could afford to buy in larger quantities. They pointed out that there was no justification for that practice which was, in fact, a method of robbing the poorer and, therefore, the more defenceless section of the community. The report in the case of tea was similar. The evidence produced before the Tribunal showed that the rate of gross profits on the cheaper teas was excessive, and that again it was the poorer section of the community that was being robbed.
I want to remind Deputies that that Tribunal was a judicial Tribunal which took evidence on oath and was empowered to command evidence. They went very thoroughly and painstakingly into the whole question, and their Report revealed a situation such as I have outlined. That Report is one of the most serious and important documents ever submitted to this House. It showed that the poorer section of our people are being systematically robbed by traders in the larger towns through excessive prices for articles of common consumption, and in many cases bad measure in addition. One would have thought that action would have been taken on that Report without delay. Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies and members of the Executive Council are frequently urging as an argument against the protection of Irish industries that protection might possibly increase the cost of living. They have gone slow on the matter of protection on that account, or, at any rate, so they have told us. In other words, they have left a number of Irishmen who might be in employment idle because of their fear that action taken to give them work would increase the cost of living. When they speak upon this matter of protection, they appear to be most anxious about the cost of living, but when they are presented with a report of a judicial tribunal which shows that the cost of living is excessive, not for any good economic reason, but because profiteering is in operation, they do nothing.
That report has been lying in the office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce since October, 1927. On 19th April, 1928, the Minister was asked to state the Government's intention in connection with the report. The Minister replied that he was advising the Executive Council to adopt the recommendation in favour of legislation dealing with short weight and measure, and that he was considering whether the recommendation in favour of marking certain articles of food with their country of origin could be incorporated in the impending merchandise marks legislation. On the main recommendation of the Tribunal, which was in favour of the establishment of a permanent prices board, he expressed his disagreement. He said he was not prepared to advise the setting up of a board to investigate prices otherwise than on a prima facie case being established by representative consumers that unreasonable prices were being charged. The amendment to the Weights and Measures Act for the purpose of dealing with the matter of short weight and measure, which he promised in April, 1928, has not been forthcoming. The Merchandise Marks Bill, to which he makes reference in that reply, has not been forthcoming. Nothing whatever is being done, and, as far as we know, the situation to-day is just the same as it was when the Tribunal was taking evidence.
The members of the Tribunal in their report were very insistent on the need for continuous investigation of food prices. They stated, as I have indicated, that they believed they would not have got the information which was made available to them if the witnesses whom they called before them did not know that the Tribunal possessed drastic powers to compel them to give that information. The Minister can tell us—in fact in relation to one particular article he has told us, that he has information to show that excessive prices are not now being charged. But I again want to impress on Deputies the fact that the Minister cannot feel confident that the information given to him in private by traders and other merchants concerned is reliable.
In that connection, I should like particularly to draw attention to what the members of the Tribunal have to say concerning the evidence submitted to them by the Dublin master bakers. Again let me remind the Dáil that the representatives of the master bakers were giving evidence on oath before the Tribunal which could have ordered their imprisonment if they did not answer questions. Yet this Tribunal had to say of this evidence: "We are unable to accept the majority of these statements as evidence of the net profit per sack accruing to bakers during the period when the price of flour averaged 49/- per sack." The Minister has given us to understand that he is now satisfied that excessive prices are not being charged for bread in relation to the price of flour. But this Tribunal proved that such excessive prices were being charged during the period covered by their investigation. They proved also that the master bakers of Dublin were not beyond supplying false information in order that they might continue enjoying the excessive profits which the Tribunal found they were in actual receipt of. The Minister cannot possibly feel satisfied that whatever information he has now at his disposal, supplied by these master bakers, is reliable enough for him to frame a policy designed to serve the best interests of the people most seriously affected.
The report recommended, as I have said, the establishment of a permanent prices board which would endeavour to achieve results mainly by the method of publicity. I do not want to be taken as agreeing with the report. I think it exaggerates the amount of good capable of being done by the publicity method. In England, that method was tried and proved inadequate and a Bill is now being discussed by the British Parliament for the establishment of a Consumers' council with drastic powers, including the power of fixing maximum prices in certain cases. Whether the Government approve of the proposal of the Food Prices Tribunal or not, it was their duty to take some action to curb the profiteering which the Tribunal found to be in operation. I think that they should have taken action along the lines now being adopted in England.
I know that there is considerable objection to any proposal to fix maximum prices. As writers on economic subjects have been pointing out recently, however, that objection is based upon the experience of the war years when prices were rising and when control was an attempt to prevent the inevitable consequences of inflation. The experience of that period cannot be a reliable guide to-day, when prices are falling and deflation and not inflation is the rule. Any board or any authority set up to deal with this question of excessive prices for articles of common consumption to be effective must have power to find out the truth by evidence and by the production of documents in the first instance, and the power to fix maximum rates as a last resort. The situation, however, calls for action, but it is calling in vain, apparently, to the Department of Industry and Commerce. The Minister is, no doubt, aware that the existence of excessive prices for these articles of common consumption is capable of being proved statistically. The index of retail prices has been falling much less rapidly than the index of wholesale prices. Statistics which have been compiled by the International Labour Office show that the cost at the beginning of the present year of the chief food commodities, together with fuel and light, were, in this country, between five per cent. and ten per cent. higher than in England. Professor Richardson, of the International Labour Office, has calculated a table of relative real hourly wages for the different countries, in which the real hourly wages prevailing in the Free State are shown to be three per cent. less than in Britain, 100 per cent. less than in the United States of America, 68 per cent. less than in Canada, and 51 per cent. less than in Australia. The real hourly wages are lower and the price of the foodstuffs, together with light and fuel, are higher. In that situation the Government should be considering ways and means of redressing the balance. I know that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is an enthusiast for rationalisation. Here is a sphere in which his enthusiasm could have full play. In the marketing of articles of common consumption, the foodstuffs upon which the lives of the poor depend, there is an inconceivable amount of waste resulting in prices being kept at a level permanently higher than in other countries. If the Minister gave the poorer people the benefit of rationalisation and cheaper prices he would be conferring a great boon upon them. I do not know what is the cause of the Government's inactivity, whether it is due to the inertia which has overtaken the Department of Industry and Commerce or not. Possibly it is due to a lack of desire to deal with the problem. The problem is there, however. The Minister, two years ago, gave a definite promise to introduce legislation to deal with certain aspects of it, but he has failed to carry out his promise. On the major problem he has apparently neither a policy to defend nor proposals to submit to the Dáil.
It is not merely upon this matter of food prices that the Department has been inactive. There are a number of other reports getting dusty in the pigeon-holes of the Minister's desk. In the year 1925 a Departmental Committee was set up to consider the question of workmen's compensation, and it reported in July, 1926. No action has yet been taken on that report either. The Committee recommended increasing the statutory limits to the compensation payable to the dependants of workers killed in industrial accidents, or to those who are deprived of their livelihood through permanent incapacity, or who otherwise suffered diminution of their earning powers. Some time ago a Private Members' Bill was introduced here by Deputy Rice, to bridge the gap intervening between the publication of the report and the date on which the Minister for Industry and Commerce would be prepared to submit his permanent legislation. That Private Bill passed its Second Reading, and went to Committee, but on Report Stage it was withdrawn, on the suggestion of the Minister, to enable fresh statistics, which he stated had been obtained in the interim, to be re-examined by the original Committee. The original Committee was re-summoned, but the majority have submitted a report recommending that no alteration should be made in the original report, and stating that the new statistics which the Minister for Industry and Commerce submitted to them, had no direct bearing on the recommendations at all. That report had been in the hands of the Minister for some time, but no intimation has been given that any legislation is likely to result from it. The situation in respect of workmen's compensation legislation is most unsatisfactory. We are a long way behind Britain in this matter, and the recommendations which the Committee made, although not the solution of the question I would like to see adopted, would effect a considerable improvement if put into operation. Personally, I think that this question of providing for workers injured in industrial accidents should be covered by a compulsory State insurance scheme. There is little prospect of such a scheme, however, being adopted by the present Government. At any rate, they could give effect, as apparently they are quite willing to do, to the recommendations of their Departmental Committee. The Minister has never at any time expressed disagreement with its recommendations. Apparently the delay in producing the Bill is due to the inertia which has overtaken his Department rather than any inability to find a method of dealing with the problem.
There is another report of equal importance which has been for a long time in the pigeon-holes of the Minister's desk and in respect to which legislation has been promised and not forthcoming. In November, 1923, a Departmental Committee was set up to examine into the question of industrial insurance and it reported to the Minister in July, 1924. The report revealed a situation existing in relation to industrial insurance which was just as serious as any other situation which the Minister might have been called upon to deal with in the six years that have intervened since the report reached him. It stated that important amendments in the law relating to industrial insurance were required to protect the insured persons from being defrauded. The persons concerned are, of course, again, the poorer classes of the community and, therefore, of no special concern to the Government. They are generally ignorant of their rights and are very often losers through the dubious methods adopted by some insurance companies and societies in pushing their business. The report showed that in 1924 there were approximately one million policies valid, yielding a premium income of about £800,000. There is no doubt that these figures have been substantially increased since. The latest returns for 1928 show that in that year 255,000 new industrial policies were issued, including sums aggregating £4,929,000. The report revealed, however, that a very large proportion of the policies taken out lapsed after a short period, because the insured persons discontinued paying the premiums. The number of policies lapsed in 1923 was 51 per cent. of the policies issued in 1923, and of the policies which lapsed in that year 30 per cent. were issued in the same year, 38 per cent. in the previous year, and 17 per cent. in 1921. It showed also that the costs of administration met by these companies practising industrial insurance business were remarkably high, being no less than 44 per cent. of the premium income. The Committee reported that the control over the business and the safeguards for the persons concerned provided by the existing law—that is, the law that was existing in 1923 —were entirely inadequate. They recommended the appointment of an Industrial Insurance Commissioner with wide powers of regulation and control and they recommended that the Minister himself should be the Commissioner. No action has been taken. Whatever abuses there were in connection with that business in 1923 are there still. Whatever losses have been suffered by the class in the community most affected in the matter are still being suffered. The Minister has repeatedly promised that legislation dealing with that business would be introduced, but the legislation has not been forthcoming. In the year 1923, the British Government passed an Act dealing with industrial insurance business. One of the provisions of that Act debarred companies not registered in Britain from carrying on the business of industrial insurance in that country.
That section of the British Act hit a number of Irish companies which had an industrial insurance practice in Britain. The Departmental Committee here found that from 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of industrial insurance business was carried on through British companies. It estimated that the premium income of foreign companies and societies from industrial insurance business in the Saorstát in 1924 was about £900,000. It has, of course, been increased beyond that figure since. No doubt a large part of that sum comes back into this country in claims paid and expenses of collection.