Vol. 69 No. 2
I move:—
That the Dáil deplores the lowering of the standard of living of the community by Government action through the operation of taxes, levies, duties and like impositions on foodstuffs and other necessaries of life, and is of opinion that all such impositions should be forthwith abolished.
I am afraid, Sir, that I find myself in somewhat of a difficulty in moving this motion, because I am moving a motion which has been debated for the last three or four hours.
Hear, hear!
I am glad that the Minister agrees with me at the outset, but I am not so sure that we will find ourselves in agreement by the time I am finished. The Minister, a few moments ago, gave a lecture to members of the House, and particularly to members on this side of the House, as to their duties when they came inside the doors of this Chamber. They were immediately to cast off their political Party cloaks and give their criticism with a view only to the national good, irrespective of what effect the views given here may have on Party politics. That may have been suggested by the Minister for Industry and Commerce for the purpose of trying to impress the many new members we have in this new Parliament; but I am sure that most of the members of this House who were members of previous Dáils would smile that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, of all members of this House, should talk in that strain. If it conveyed anything at all to me, it conveyed that the Minister himself looks upon his Bill as a farce and a joke, and not to be taken seriously.
Are we debating the Bill or the motion, Sir?
Surely, Sir, if the Minister and Deputy Corry and Deputy Davin, as well as many other members of the House, had liberty to discuss my motion, I ought to be allowed a few preliminary remarks.
About the Bill?
Upon what was said.
That ought to be written into the Standing Orders.
There is no man in this House who has shown a more complete ignorance of the Standing Orders of this House than the Minister for Finance. We heard the old story —accusations levelled against this side of the House of killing Irish industry. We heard attempts being made to justify the present prices, and the enormous increases in the cost of living in this country, on the grounds that it was necessary that prices should so increase in order that Irish industry should get an opportunity of developing. Those statements, of course, are not true, and I want to say here, clearly and emphatically, that so far as I am concerned, if Irish industry can only be built up in this country on profiteering and on so increasing the prices of the necessaries of life that the poor in this country are not able to get enough to eat, then I am against Irish industries. Killing Irish industry! Every tariff, every tax, every levy is attempted to be justified on the grounds that it is put on for the one purpose, and the one purpose only, of protecting Irish industry. The men who are killing Irish industry in this country are the men sitting over there, who pretend to put on taxes and levies for the purpose of helping Irish industry and at the same time are collecting £11,000,000 at the ports of this country. If the tariffs and the taxes and the levies and the prohibitions were effective, the Minister for Finance would not be collecting the greater part of his revenue at the ports of the country. The Minister knows that, and any member of this House who has given any thought whatever to the matter knows it quite well also.
Deputy Corry says that all these things can be justified because we are giving employment to our own. Deputy Corry must have his head higher in the clouds even than some of us thought he had. Giving employment to our own! Perhaps the Minister for Industry and Commerce would get some member of his staff to give Deputy Corry the figures of emigration of young Irishmen to Great Britain for the first six months of this year. Perhaps he would remind the Deputy that the result of the Government's policy and of the employment that is supposed to be given out of this great tillage policy of the Government has been that at the busiest period of the year in the tillage areas, notwithstanding the emigration, the unemployment figures are increasing at the rate of 1,000 per week. Killing Irish industry! The people who tell the truth, the people who have no more respect for an Irish profiteer than they have for an English profiteer, are the people who are supposed to be killing Irish industry. The Minister for Industry and Commerce told us not very long ago that he would not be justified in increasing unemployment assistance by sixpence per week because the cost of living had not increased by that amount. That statement was made in this House. It is on the records of this House. I do not believe there is another member of the Fianna Fáil Party that would dare to make that statement. Has the Minister any knowledge, and I am sure he has—he must have—of the actual increases which have taken place? Is it too much to say that there has been an increase, taking things all round and taking an average household in this country, of at least 20 per cent. in the last four years? That is, I think, putting it low.
We may say what we like here, and we may talk around the subject, but the fact is that here to-day in this country bread is 25 per cent. dearer than it is across the water. There is no doubt about that. Will the Minister contend that flour is not substantially dearer here? Will the Minister contend that bacon is not substantially dearer here? Will he contend, quality for quality, that both boots and clothes are not dearer here than on the other side? Is it not a fact that every article, almost without exception, going into the ordinary household to-day is subject to some sort of a tax or tariff? With regard to Deputy Davin and other members of the Labour Party, I must confess—and I do not say this in any carping spirit or with any intention whatever of trying to score a point— but I must confess that I find it difficult to understand their attitude, for the reason that the Deputy got up here and spoke to the effect that the Bill the Minister introduced to control prices and to prevent profiteering did not go far enough, while at the same time the Deputy and every member of the Party are prepared to go to the fullest extent to support by their votes and by their voice the policy that has brought about the huge increase in the cost of living. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot vote for the policy and then try to run away from the effects of that policy, and that is what it amounts to.
There is no use in the Minister telling us that prices are rising all over the world. That may be so, but nobody in this House or outside this House is going to accept that they are rising to the same extent.
They are greater.
Nonsense. If the Minister is not going to treat this matter seriously, I would prefer that he would keep his mouth shut. The Government talk about killing Irish industry and they talk glibly about their desire to clear the slums of this country—to build houses and to build them at the lowest possible cost so that they can be let at a rent which the slum-dwellers can afford to pay. That is all talk. Out of that necessity the Government immediately proceeds to raise revenue. There is a tax of 5/- upon every ton of cement that goes into every house built in this country to take the people out of the slums.
As to the cost of living, will the Minister or any other member of this House ask himself this: with the cost of living so high as it is at present, what is it going to be in the winter? Is it not a fact, so far as one can see, that bread is going to be dearer in the winter than it is to-day and that flour is going to be dearer? Is it not a fact that coal is going to be from 4/- to 5/- per ton dearer after the 1st November when certain parts of the famous Coal-Cattle Pact come into operation? Is it not a fact that prices are being regulated in such a way as to hurt the poor more than anybody else? Is it not a fact that tea under 2/- per lb., which is purchased, in the main, by the very poor of our towns and cities, is being increased in price or being reduced in quality, and that tea over that price is not being affected?
I should like Deputies, who perhaps were not here at the time, to remember what happened. We are told we are attacking the Government's wheat policy when talking about the price of flour. Deputies must remember that when the Government embarked on the wheat policy at first the subsidy was paid out of the Central Exchequer. In other words, if the world price of wheat was 14/6 and if the home price was 24/6, the miller paid the 24/6 and he was paid 10/- out of the Central Exchequer for every barrel of wheat he bought. The Government pushed on their wheat policy, and if they continued to pay the subsidy out of the Central Exchequer, direct taxation would have to be increased. Therefore they changed it to indirect taxation. The position last year and this year is this: the Government fix a guaranteed price for wheat irrespective of what the world price is and the miller is given full power to get that increase, whatever it may be, out of the consumer of the flour and the bread. In that way the poor people are hit still harder, because it is well known that the poor people consume more bread and flour than people in better circumstances.
These are the people who accuse us of trying to sabotage Irish industry. If one dares to open one's mouth, or to offer one word of criticism of any industry, whether it is being run on creditable lines or not, one is immediately accused of trying to sabotage that industry. The Minister talks about fair criticism. Does he consider that that sort of remark is fair? Deputies ought to get away from this cheap jibe of smashing Irish industry and trying to help John Bull. Deputies on one side of the House have as much interest in this country, and as much love for it, as Deputies on the other side, and are just as anxious to see this country progress. There is no use in talking about helping Irish industry by collecting £11,000,000 at the ports of the country. You are not helping Irish industry by having a woman living in the slums of Dublin paying 2d. for a bottle of castor oil for a child which she used to get for a penny four years ago. That is what is happening. Every article, down to the smallest article purchased, has been increased in price. I go further and say this—and again I am going to be accused of sabotaging Irish industry—and I can get support for this statement from many men in this House who are the fathers of families, that if the actual cash prices of boots and shoes in this country are being kept down, the quality is not being kept up. Deputies may not be inclined to agree with that at first blush, but if they ask the mother of a family what is her experience—and she is in a position to know better than anyone else—she will be able to tell them.
I listened to Deputy Davin, and I must confess that I found him more involved than usual. I know the Deputy very well, and have no doubt of his honesty of purpose. But the impression he left in my mind at the end of his speech was that the policy he wanted to see adopted was a policy that would give us high tariffs, indiscriminate tariffs, and indiscriminate levies without any increase in the cost of the article. The Deputy cannot have that. The Deputy has been told before in this House that he is a member of the only Labour Party in the world that is in favour of tariffs, taxes, prohibitions and so on.
That is not true.
I am saying that the Deputy has been told that. If Deputy Heron can disprove that statement we will be glad to hear from him. I think there was an exception made about some part of Australia.
It is not true.
The Deputy will find out that that sort of thing does not cut much ice in this House. He is a bit new here. If the Labour Party in Australia were in favour of tariffs, they had certain safeguards, as the Deputy ought to know, with regard to wages and other things. The point I want to get at is that the Labour Party themselves, in common with the Government, have been responsible for bringing about a policy in this country the effects of which have been to reduce more effectively the actual wages of the wage-earners than any employer has succeeded in doing, at least for the last 20 years. The Deputy smiles at that. I should like to hear him saying that it is not true.
The Minister, when replying to this debate, will, I have no doubt, resort to his old tactics. His tactics will consist of this, that every statement from this side of the House is untrue. The Minister will tell the House that these taxes, levies, prohibitions and so on are fully justified and have proved themselves to the hilt. The Minister will try to tell the House that, notwithstanding the fact that 28,000 people had to leave this country in the first six months of this year. The Minister will try to tell the House that these indiscriminate tariffs and levies are justified notwithstanding the fact that emigration, plus period orders and all the other obstacles which the Minister's Department can place in the way of the unemployed, have been unable to reduce in any way the effective unemployed in this country. The Minister knows that very well.
I have no intention whatever of going over the ground at any length. I have tried to put the position clearly and forcibly as I see it. I know from personal experience that there are people in this country to-day who find this tremendous increase in the cost of living pressing upon them in a terrible way. There are children in this country to-day who are not getting sufficient to eat. There are parents in this country to-day who are finding it impossible to make the wages which they receive, if they are fortunate enough to be employed, fit into the ever-increasing cost of living. Will the Minister ask himself what is the position to-day of the man who is one unemployment assistance, receiving the same rates, the very miserable rates, that were fixed four years ago? Will the Minister contend for one moment that the purchasing power of unemployment assistance, as fixed by him or by this House four years ago, is anything like what it was even then? Will the Minister contend or will he attempt to disprove my statement that the cost of living is 20 to 25 per cent. greater in this country than it was four years ago? I do not think he will.
Will the Minister deny that whatever profiteers there are in this State to-day, the biggest profiteer is the Government itself? Will the Minister deny that most of the £11,000,000 collected at the ports is taken out of the pockets of people who can ill afford it? Will the Minister deny that the fact that the Minister for Finance can collect from £10,000,000 to £11,000,000 at our ports, in itself disproves most of the statements made in regard to the effectiveness and the success of their industrial policy? Will he admit that actions taken by his colleagues and by himself have jeopardised Irish industry more than any statement made from this or any other side of this House, or, for that matter, any statement made outside this House? Will the Minister consider this finally, whether this policy of indiscriminate tariffs, followed, as it inevitably must be, as Deputy Dowdall has stated, by profiteering, is doing damage not only to Irish industry to-day, but doing very definite damage to the future of Irish industry?
Does the Minister consider that he can go on piling tariffs and Orders indiscriminately on the shoulders of the people of this country to the extent of 50, 75 and 100 per cent., without any effective check to see that the people of this country are not fleeced? Does the Minister contend that every man engaged in industry in this country is in it for the love of it? Does the Minister contend that all industries in this country that are getting this protection are using that protection to improve that industry or to give more employment? So far as I am concerned, the acid test of the value of any industry to this country is the improvement it will make in employment in this country, and unfortunately, so far as we can see, there has been no improvement in that respect. With that statement, I formally propose the motion.
I beg to second the motion. Listening to the debate on the last Bill, and to the Minister's remarks at the beginning of Deputy Morrissey's speech, I was beginning to wonder if I were entirely wrong in assuming that there was anything like an increased cost of living because the Minister seems to have made up his mind that there has been no increase in the cost of living. He is absolutely satisfied that anybody who talks about an increased cost of living is sabotaging Irish industry or making a cross-roads speech. If the Minister had even looked at the daily papers, even though he may not receive deputations on the subject, he would see that public bodies all over the country— county councils, corporations, boards of health and of public assistance, mental hospital committees—are all shrieking about the increased cost of living and the increased burdens of the ratepayers, the increased burdens of having to carry on their institutions owing to the increased cost of living. The Minister would see that labour bodies and organisations are also shrieking out about the increased cost of living. The Minister would see that the Gárda are demanding a restoration of the cuts made in their salaries owing to the increased cost of living. The Minister would see that civil servants are asking to have the cost-of-living index figure changed because they say that, as at present computed, it does not present a true indication of the increase in the cost of living. They want more concessions in wages because of the increased cost of living. I am inclined to think that the people throughout the country who are running their own households, the people who are on public boards, the people who are members of charitable organisations like the St. Vincent de Paul Society, who are appealing for more funds in order to meet their increased outgoings—these people are as likely to know, as the Minister or anybody else, whether there is an increase in the cost of living in this country.
This motion sets forth that where the standard of living has been lowered, or where the cost of living has been increased through the operations of taxes, levies, duties and like impositions on food stuffs and other necessaries of life, this House is of opinion that they should be removed. The Minister apparently will deny that there is any difference between prices of foodstuffs here and prices elsewhere. He will say that there is a greater proportion of an increase elsewhere. I do not propose to go into details, but I know this much from English households and from households in the North of Ireland, of which I have personal experience, that there are very few ordinary articles, apart altogether from food stuffs, going into the ordinary house for which we are not paying more to-day than has to be paid in England or Northern Ireland. When we think of the effect on the very poor of the present cost of living, and when we look into the figures which Deputy Hogan gave at Clare County Council —where he gave as the budget for a family of three a sum of 34/8½ per week—I ask the Minister if he still insists that there is no increase in the cost of living. How is a family of five, six, seven or eight, where the father is earning only 15/- or £1 per week, or where in some cases he is earning nothing at all—some weeks not working, not even drawing unemployment assistance, because he may be waiting for it—to exist under present conditions? I should like to ask the Minister has he considered the position of these people?
If Deputy Hogan's figures are correct, that it would take 34/8½ to provide for a family of three, how is a family of seven or eight to exist on 15/- or £1 per week, or even less? If this Government is collecting £11,000,000 in taxes, somebody is paying these taxes. It is the consumer who is paying these taxes. If any of these taxes, levies or impositions are putting an extra shilling on a poor person which he cannot afford to pay, then I say such taxes, levies and impositions should be removed. I say, further, that there are people in this country who do not come into the category of wage-earners at all. Throughout the country there are thousands of small farmers who, in hard cash, are not earning very much in the week at all. These people have to make ends meet. They have to go into the small towns and pay more for their bread, for their flour, for their sugar, for their cups and saucers and for all their household utensils. They have to pay much more for every article that comes into the house every week. Tariffs and levies are responsible for that increase in the cost of living, and the Minister knows it. Every Deputy in this House, whether on these benches, the Independent Benches or the Government Benches, knows that tariffs, levies and impositions are responsible for the increased cost of living, and if any Deputy in this House votes against the motion, he is voting for a continuance of this increase in the cost of living, because he knows in his heart that this motion is correct. He knows from his experience in his own house, if he is running a house, that the facts set out in this motion are correct. If we are going to have any honesty here, if we are going to have any consideration for the poor people, if we are going to live up to those Christian democratic principles about which we hear so much, we should carry this motion.
Deputy Morrissey objects to being lectured on his conduct in this House and I shall try to avoid doing so. He has taken on himself the responsibility of proposing a motion which, however vague its terms or uncertain its meaning, at least is going to give rise to a debate upon important economic questions, probably the most important economic questions that this House will have to deal with during its existence. Instead of dealing with those questions in a calm, deliberate and constructive manner, we got from him and from the seconder of the motion purely Party speeches, evidence merely of a desire to put the blame on the Government for existing conditions. There was not one concrete or constructive suggestion as to how conditions might be improved.
Remove the tariff.
Read the motion.
Who is interrupting now?
I am going to read the motion, as the Deputy suggested. That was my intention when I stood up. Even if I think it, I do not propose to say that Deputy Morrissey has failed in his duty as a public representative, but I am going to say and submit for the consideration of his Party Whips that he has failed as a Party man. Here is the motion: "That the Dáil deplores the lowering of the standard of living of the community by Government action through the operation of taxes, levies, duties and like impositions on foodstuffs and other necessaries of life, and is of opinion that all such impositions should be forthwith abolished." Now, I suggest to the House, I suggest to the Leader of the Party opposite, that any Deputy proposing a motion of that kind should set out to show, first of all, that the standard of living of the community has been lowered; secondly, that it has been lowered by Government action, through the operation of taxes, levies, duties and like impositions on foodstuffs and other necessaries of life, and that the situation is going to be improved from the point of view of the standard of living by the abolition of those taxes, duties and like impositions. Deputy Morrissey did not address himself to any of these matters; neither did the seconder of the motion.
There was one thing that Deputy Morrissey did say to which I am going to refer. He assumed that I was going to stand up forthwith for the purpose of alleging that every statement made by him was untrue. Quite a number of them were, but I am going to set Deputy Morrissey an example in the course of this debate, and right now, by giving him my source of information in connection with every fact that I mention, so that Deputies can check its accuracy or disprove its truth if they wish. I submit that that was the duty of Deputy Morrissey. There is available to Deputies, as there is available to me, information upon all these matters. In the current issue of the Irish Trade Journal, which was sent free of charge to all Deputies, there is set out a whole series of tables and charts giving all the available information upon practically every economic activity of this State. Why did Deputy Morrissey not refer to these? That is the information I have, and that information was also available to him. If he wanted to make a case here for a complete revolutionary change of Government policy on the ground that the standard of living of the community is being lowered by the present policy, and will be raised by the change, he should at least have made reference to these tables in that volume of information which was made available to him, and based his case upon what he found there. Perhaps he did. Perhaps he studied the tables. Perhaps his speech was due to the fact that he could find nothing there that would support his contentions and justify his motion, but his ignoring of them is not going to prevent reference being made to them, because Deputies on this side of the House have as much right to speak on this debate as Deputies on the other side of the House, and, therefore, they may be sure that the facts are going to be made known. That is the main concern of Deputies opposite —to hide the facts. For months past they have been carrying on in the country the most dishonest campaign ever undertaken here in relation to food prices and similar matters—most dishonest because it was based on a deliberate distortion of the facts, a campaign in which they were supported by the Irish Independent newspaper in a manner which in my opinion lowered to the mud the reputation of Irish journalism for decency. We expect from newspapers at least some attempt to present the facts correctly.
Hear, hear! Tell that to the Editor of the Irish Press.
When we read, as we read only last Sunday morning in the Sunday Independent——
I do not think the Minister ought to refer to those matters.
I am going to deal with the question of the cost of foodstuffs and the imposition of duties thereon.
Those are the Minister's tactics. He wants to keep away from the facts.
I will deal with the same matter in another way. Let us turn to the motion. Let us turn to the three questions arising on the motion, questions with which I submit that Deputy Morrissey and the seconder of the motion should have dealt. Has the standard of living of the community been lowered?
Yes. The people in the country did not see a bit of bacon in the last six or 12 months. I know it for a fact.
The standard of living of this or any other community can be ascertained by reference to certain known facts. What do we mean by the standard of living? We mean the quantity of goods which the community consume, the amount of money that they save, the level of commercial activity and the volume of employment. When we talk about the standard of living of the community being raised, we mean that the people are consuming more goods, that they are saving more money, and when we talk about the standard being lowered we mean that they are consuming less, or saving less, or both. Am I right in that? Will any Deputy in this House question that interpretation of the term "standard of living"?
Let us now turn to the facts, the facts that were available to Deputies opposite just as they were available to me, and to which they should have referred before attempting to initiate this debate in the House, from the point of view of Party tactics as well as in fulfilment of their obligations to the people who sent them here. It is, I think, safe to assume, if the known sources of information make it clear that the people in this country are consuming more or saving more, that the standard of living is rising. If those sources of information reveal that the people are consuming less or saving less, then I will agree that the standard of living is disimproving. There are certain dutiable commodities as to the consumption of which accurate statistics are available. Let us refer to those first. They are beer, spirits, tobacco, and certain other articles. In the current issue of the Irish Trade Journal there is set out in respect of each month since the beginning of 1934 the quantity of beer, spirits and tobacco withdrawn from bond for consumption in this country.
They are for drowning sorrow!
In 1934 the average monthly consumption of beer here was 47,122 barrels. In 1935 it was 50,210 barrels. In 1936 it was 52,290 barrels.
Deputy Tom Kelly must be tickled to death about that.
I am.
I will admit at once that in relation to any single commodity there may be some set of circumstances to explain the rise or fall in consumption otherwise than by reference to the general position of the community; but if we find over all commodities a similar increase in consumption, then I submit that there is only one conclusion which we can come to. In the case of spirits the monthly average consumption of spirits in these three years was:—1934, 49,750 gallons; 1935, 50,690 gallons; 1936, 52,230 gallons. People may buy beer and spirits to drown their sorrows, as somebody suggested, but they need income to do it, and if we find that not merely are they consuming more beer and spirits, but that the monthly average quantity of tobacco consumed here increased during those three years, what must our opinion be? In the case of tobacco the consumption for the three years was as follows:—1934, 691,000 lb.; 1935, 705,000 lb.; 1936, 754,000 lb.
Might I ask a question? The Minister will agree with me that, in the economic sense, anything that is purchased, let it be eaten or drunk, or let it be a piece of furniture, it enters into consumption. The Minister agrees. Now, the commodities he has mentioned, beer, spirits and tobacco, come under certain categories. The first two are luxuries, but tobacco is regarded as a necessity.
It is a luxury.
It should be apparent to the Minister who, I must assume——
This is an argument; it is not a question.
But the Minister himself sent out the challenge. He must surely agree that it is only persons with money, persons in employment, who can buy these things.
That is an argument, not a question.
I agree that it is only people with money who are buying these articles; they could not buy them without money. I mention these articles rather than others because, in relation to them, we have got exact figures. Beer, spirits and tobacco are kept in bond under Government control, and we know the exact quantity that is drawn out in any week or month for consumption, and we can give precise information which we cannot give in relation to such things as boots or shoes or clothes, or articles of that kind. Now, with regard to the purchase of new private motor cars——
Do you mean the ones paid for?
Again, in relation to these we have exact figures, because every new motor-car must be registered. Here are the numbers of new motor-cars—the average monthly number—registered:—1934, 388; 1935, 493; 1936, 676.
An extension of the hire purchase system.
The Deputy can give any explanation he likes. I have already admitted that the figures relating to a single commodity or to groups of commodities may be explainable on some other basis than an improvement in the standard of living. I have shown the increased general consumption of commodities here and, when I put them alongside all the other figures available, I submit that Deputy Morrissey will be forced to admit in his own mind, if he does not do it publicly, the force of the contention I make.
The Minister has not mentioned one article covered by the motion.
It is much less easy, as Deputies know, to get up-to-date figures for non-dutiable industrial products, particularly in a time like the present of intense development when, in order to stimulate production, restrictions, sometimes harsh, are placed on certain imports. At all events, all the available information indicates no decline in consumption, and if Deputies seek to base their case for a complete change of Government policy on the ground that there is such a decrease of consumption, they have to prove it. As I say, all the available evidence is in the contrary direction. We have, therefore, no evidence of a diminution in the consumption of goods. The evidence I have given shows that there was an increase in consumption; but I am prepared merely to take it that that evidence sustains the view that there has been no decline in consumption and if, outside that, we find that our people's savings are increasing, then I submit that the contention in the first line of this motion—that there has been a lowering of the standard of living—must be rejected as nonproven.
Again, in relation to the savings of the people, we have exact figures. The Post Office Savings Bank is the main source of the people's savings, although there are others. The weekly average amount deposited in the Post Office Savings Bank, less the amount withdrawn in each week during the three years was as follows:—1934, £11,460; 1935, £11,520; 1936, £17,120. I know it might be contended, as it was on one occasion, that the increase in the balance due to depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank could be explained by reference to some transfer of preference from the Savings Bank to Savings Certificates, or in some such way. Lest that might occur to anybody here, I propose to give the combined figure representing the weekly average amount deposited in the Post Office Savings Bank, less withdrawals, plus the amount paid for Savings Certificates, less payments. Here are the figures:—1934, £10,080; 1935, £13,600; 1936, £18,770. That represents the Post Office Savings Bank and Savings Certificates. There is no evidence of a reduction in the standard of living there. Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary. There is evidence that our people are saving more. That increase in savings was recorded in each month of this year up to June.
What about the bank overdrafts?
In July there was no increase recorded, but that was to be expected, having regard to the prolonged building strike, which necessitated some depositors realising on their savings in order to maintain themselves. Deputy Davin refers to the ordinary banks. Let us turn to them.
And the moneylenders.
I will give the debits in the commercial banks' ordinary account and, for convenience sake, I am going to give average figures during the last three years. They are as follows:—1934, £1,490,000; 1935, £1,530,000; 1936, £1,620,000. The figures I have given so far show, I think, clearly that there is no evidence to support the view that our people are consuming less in goods. All the available evidence shows that they are consuming more. There is no evidence that they are saving less. The available evidence is that they are saving more. If, side by side with that evidence, we have from other sources undeniable proof of increased commercial activity, then I think we must conclude, whether it suits our Party policies or not, that the contention at the beginning of this motion is wrong and that, in fact, there has been no lowering of the standard of living of the people of this State. If you ask any text-book economist what is the most reliable index of commercial activity he will refer you to the bank clearance of notes, bills and cheques. As the total of the daily clearance of notes, bills and cheques increases, it is assumed that commercial activity is also increasing, and as that total diminishes, it is assumed that trade is stagnant, and that is a reasonable assumption. The weekly average of the Dublin bank clearances, bills, notes and cheques in the last three years were:—1934, £5,160,000; 1935, £5,280,000; 1936, £5,570,000. Other sources of information as to the volume of commercial activity are also available. In the ordinary text-books one finds references not only to these bank clearances, bills, notes and cheques, but also to the volume of traffic over the railways. The average weekly railway receipts in the Free State in the past three years were:—1934, £79,230; 1935, £83,530; 1936, £85,500.
How many miles of railways were closed?
That makes the figures still more striking.
How much traffic was diverted to the railways?
By the Minister's legislation.
I am anxious to get that point cleared. These figures are available by reason of the fact that traffic was diverted from the roads to the railways. We can get figures for that. The average number of passengers carried by road transport in 1934 was 7,780,000. I will leave out 1935, because the figures that year were influenced by the Dublin Tramways strike, which lasted three or four months. In 1936 the average number of passengers carried by road transport was 7,830,000. Not merely had we got an increase in traffic over the railways, but at the same time there was an increase in traffic over the roads.
The Minister mentioned persons in one case and £s in another case.
Oh, yes; both show an increase.
Is the figure 7,830,000 persons or £s?
Persons.
The Minister said in one case £s and in the other case persons.
I meant persons. The motion reads: "That the Dáil deplores the lowering of the standard of living of the community——"
Why?
Before we consider lowering of the standard of living of the community, let us first consider whether it was lowered at all. I am setting out to prove that there has been no lowering of the standard, but that it has consistently improved and without interruption since 1934.
The Coal-Cattle Pact was a great help in 1936.
The greater commercial activity that the figures I have given reveal is, of course, reflected in the improvement in our employment situation and in the reduction of unemployment. Deputy Morrissey has told the House that unemployment was not reduced this year. The Deputy astounded me by that statement, because the same figures are available to him as to me. These figures must be given their obvious meaning. They show that the number of the unemployed has been reduced.
Not reduced by the Minister's policy. We know what reduced the figures. It was not the Government policy.
We will discuss Government policy in a moment. Has the standard of living of the community been reduced? I have here the number of persons registered as unemployed for every week in this year up to the end of July and, similarly, the number in every week up to the end of July in 1936. The number registered in this year as unemployed is less in every single week than it was in the corresponding week last year, the maximum decrease in unemployment being 50,178 for the week ended 22nd February and the minimum being 5,671 for a week in July. On the average, the number of registered unemployed was 23,000 less in each week than it was last year.
Reduced by emigration.
I am merely dealing with Deputy Morrissey's contention that the number was increased.
In relation to the number of people in the country?
Deputy Morrissey made no qualification. He said the number had been increased. He has been saying the same thing all over the country for the past year and he will be saying it at the cross-roads next Sunday.
The trouble is, I tell the truth.
Deputy Byrne had said that the diminution was explainable by emigration. Undoubtedly so, but we are giving tangible evidence of a substantial increase in the number of people in employment. Then there is another explanation which should occur to Deputies also. There are more people in employment each week this year than each week last year. In 1936 there were more people employed than in 1935, and in 1935 there were more people employed than in 1934. I have here the numbers and the figures of employment stamps issued in each month for each of these years. Deputies cannot persuade me that persons buy these stamps and burn them so as to make Fianna Fáil propaganda.
Employment for three days a week.
Or for one day.
No; the average period of employment is longer now than formerly. Every insurance stamp sold represents a man at work. The Deputy knows that. I have, in fact, produced evidence to show that the average period of employment is longer now than it used to be.
Is it satisfactory?
I am not now going to deal with the question whether existing conditions are satisfactory. Nobody has ever accused me of being satisfied with existing conditions. But if we are to make a serious effort to improve them, we must start on a basis of facts. We must know where we are. We must know the size of the problem and the effectiveness of the various measures taken to deal with it. If we are not going to be misled by wild and reckless statements by the Fine Gael Party, and, occasionally, by the Labour Party, we must know all about this problem. If we are to face this problem in the right way we must know all about it.
Are we to take it from that that the Minister considers that three days a week is enough?
We are prepared any time to discuss that. It is a question of ways and means. Deputy Morrissey quoted me as saying that I would not be justified in increasing unemployment assistance by 6d. a week. I never made such a statement. I did say here at one time that 6d. would be a greater contribution to the increase in the cost of living than had taken place in the cost of living at that time.
That is good enough for me.
In relation to unemployment assistance rates, the consideration in mind when fixing them was not the cost of living. We never suggested, and do not suggest now, that it is possible for an unemployed man to maintain himself indefinitely, with no other income except unemployment assistance, on the rates scheduled in the Unemployment Assistance Act. We never believed that, and never suggested it. When determining what these rates were to be, we took the cost-of-living index figure into account and the resources of the State. We brought into that fund every penny we could get by increased taxation —and even then the increased taxation had to be forced through the Dáil against the combined opposition of other Deputies.
By means of our majority, and against the opposition of Deputy Morrissey and his colleagues, we succeeded in getting one and half millions of money in new taxation from the people of this State for the financing of that service. We did not feel it was possible to get more. The only thing that limited the unemployment assistance provided by the Act was the fact that we could not get more, because there was a limit beyond which taxation could be put without destroying the evil.
What did the President say in Cork?
The average monthly number of unemployment insurance stamps issued for men only in each of the following three years was: 1934, 2,618; 1935, 2,713; 1936, 2,898. Similar increases are shown, according to the Irish Trade Journal, in respect of women, boys and girls. That showed an all-round increase of persons in employment.
Part-time employment.
Any kind of employment.
Rotational.
I am not dealing with the nature of the employment. I am destroying the contention that there were fewer people employed, that there were more unemployed, and that the standard of living of our people was lowered. There is the evidence. I may be told that the Director of Statistics faked these figures to make a case for the Government. Why deny facts? Does the Party opposite think that they will frame a policy on the basis of a misconception of the facts? Surely not. If they are going to deal with this problem properly, to help the Government charged with responsibility to abolish unemployment, to raise the standard of living and to end destitution and poverty, they must start from that basis. They cannot do it on the basis of wild propaganda. I say that my job here should not be an educational job, to educate Deputies on the facts so that they will be useful members of the House.
Produce the plan you fooled the people with in 1932.
The number of people who registered at unemployment exchanges as being available for work each week this year was on the average 20,000 less than last year. The number of persons in respect of whom unemployment insurance contributions were paid, persons who got insurable work, had increased. The number of persons who claimed unemployment insurance benefit, taking the monthly average in 1934, was 20,560; in 1935, 18,410, and in 1936, 16,040. I give these figures with certain hesitation because, in relation to the number of claims for unemployment completely opposite causes might produce the same results. By themselves they prove nothing but, in relation to the other facts, I submit that they prove conclusively that the unemployment position here is not disimproving. I will put it no higher than that. The number of persons receiving home assistance on the last Saturday of each month in the last three years was: 1934, 108,000; 1935, 86,000, and 1936, 80,000. All that shows that there is no truth in the contention made in the motion, that the standard of living had been reduced. Deputies can form their own conclusions as to whether it proves that the standard of living has been increased. I will not argue that now. I shall be satisfied with contending that the figures prove that the statements made in the motion moved by Deputy Morrissey are not true, and that there has been no lowering of the standard of living of this community. The motion goes further and states that not merely has there been a lowering of the standard of living of the community but that it is the result of Government action "through the operation of taxes, levies, duties and like impositions on foodstuffs and other necessaries of life."
Now we are coming to it, at long last.
I do not contest, and no one would be so foolish as to contest that the cost of living has increased since 1934. It has definitely. In 1932 and 1933 the cost of living fell. The fall stopped in 1934, and since then there has been quite a substantial rise. The motion, however, contends that the rise in the cost of living is due to Government action. This Government commenced action in March, 1932, and if any evidence is to be produced in support of the contention in the motion, it must be evidence that since 1932 the cost of living has increased in comparison with the period before 1932. I noticed that in the debate on the other Bill Deputies opposite when talking about the cost of living stopped at 1934 "on the road back." It is true they could make the case that there has been, on the basis of a comparison of the figures for this year with 1934, but when they set out to show that the increased cost of living is due to the policy of this Government, then their comparison must be over the whole period that this Government was in office, as against the period before it was elected. Between the year 1931, which was the last year of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government, and the year 1936, the last year for which we have the complete figures, there was no increase shown in the cost-of-living index. The index figures for one year are the same as for the other. It is true that comparison masks the considerable fall and recovery in the intervening period, because between 1931 and 1934 there was a fall, and between 1934 and 1936 there was a recovery.
But in 1936 the cost of living here was not higher than in 1931 when a different Government policy was in operation. One year as against another is a false comparison, because exceptional circumstances might operate one year to raise or depress the cost of living, and it might be only temporary and would not be repeated in subsequent years. Therefore, I think it is a much fairer comparison to take the average for five years before the change of Government and the average for five years afterwards. The average figure of the cost of living prior to 1932 was 163 and for the five years since 1932, 155.
In view of these figures I submit it is difficult to contend that Government policy alone has been responsible for increasing the cost of living. That is the contention in the motion. I am not denying that an increase in the cost of living has taken place. I am not denying that Government policy was in part responsible for it. The truth was, that Government policy was in part designed to produce that increase in the cost of various commodities, the prices of which are taken into account in the cost-of-living index figures, but I say it is utterly false and misleading to endeavour to create in the minds of Deputies the idea that Government policy alone was responsible for an increase in the cost of living. The cost of living is rising, but to the knowledge of Deputies who moved the motion, and of the Leaders of the Party on the opposite benches who framed it, it is rising in every country in the world, and in some is rising, in proportion, more rapidly than here.
Let us take the figures for the various countries. In the Trade Supplement of the London Economist for September 5th, 1937, statistics are available. Deputies can purchase copies of that publication. These show that the cost of living all over the world fell rapidly until 1933. Deputies know that. They know, in fact, that what was called an economic blizzard, a world crisis, was occasioned by that fall in prices, and that world conferences were called by the great States in an effort to get international agreement to raise prices.
It was not until prices began to rise again that the world began to recover from the depression and that commercial activity, was renewed. Between 1933 and 1936, the cost of living in this country rose by 5.9 per cent. That is the increase which has taken place in the cost-of-living index in this country between 1933 and 1936. In the United Kingdom, it rose during the same period by 5 per cent.—a slightly smaller increase but, nevertheless, very similar. In the U.S.A., during the same period, the cost of living rose by 13.2 per cent.; in Germany by 5.5 per cent., in Australia by 5.6 per cent., in Canada by 5 per cent., and in New Zealand by 7 per cent. I could give you the figure for France but it would be misleading. It shows a much higher increase but the currency fluctuations had a lot to do with it. The accuracy of these figures cannot be contested. Deputies will, I assume, take it from me that the London Economist is not a Fianna Fáil organ and that its figures are not prepared for the purpose of making Fianna Fáil propaganda. The rise in the cost of living here between the period when the slump ended until this date was no greater than in other countries. I might, perhaps, have obtained figures for countries the economic conditions of which are somewhat more similar to our own than the highly industrialised countries for which figures are given in the Economist but I was not able to procure those figures in time.
The cost of living rose more rapidly this year than last year but, again, that increase has been reflected in every country as well as our own. Between a month in 1936 and a month in 1937—in the case of the Free State, August, and in the case of Great Britain, July—the cost-of-living index rose here by 6.9 per cent., and in the United Kingdom by 6.2 per cent. Again, the advantage was slightly in favour of the United Kingdom, but factors are operating to inflate our cost-of-living index here that do not operate there. A much fairer picture will be obtained by taking, not the cost-of-living index for all items, but the index figures for food items alone. Before I deal with that matter, I want you to bear in mind the terms of Deputy Morrissey's motion:—
That the Dáil deplores the lowering of the standard of living of the community by Government action.
Between 1931-2—the last year during which Cumann na nGaedheal were in office and before this Government came into office—and the present year, 1936-7, the index for food prices in the Irish Free State rose by 5.1 per cent. Over the same period, the food prices index for the United Kingdom rose by 7.5 per cent. Deputies opposite laughed when I said that the increase in food prices here was proportionately less than in Great Britain in that period. These are the figures. Let them work them out for themselves. Let them apply to the British Board of Trade for the information which they can supply. I did not do that. I took my information out of published documents—documents which are available to Deputies as well as to me, the Board of Trade journals and the Economist supplement. These figures show that the rise in the cost of living of which Deputies complain has taken place everywhere and could not be avoided in this country.
A rise in the cost of living does not necessarily involve a decrease in the standard of living. If there is an increase in income corresponding to the increase in the cost of living, the standard of living remains unchanged. We, in this country, have no index for wages and, consequently, I cannot give you a precise figure, but I think it is well known that the trend of wages in practically every occupation in recent years has been definitely upwards. In all the big industries which employ adult male workers—the great majority of the adult male workers of the country—the increase recorded in wages is considerably greater, proportionately, than the increase which has been recorded in the cost of living.
Including the agricultural industry?
I propose to deal with that now. Between May, 1933, and May, 1937, the index of farm produce prices rose by 28.3 per cent. That is a substantially higher increase than was shown in the cost-of-living index. In 1937, therefore, having regard to the substantial increase which took place in agricultural prices as compared with the much smaller increase in the cost of commodities, the position of our farmers was much better, despite—or perhaps because of—the increase in prices of which Deputies are complaining.
We need not stop at that. We can turn otherwise than to direct statistics of that kind for information as to the accuracy of the contention made in this motion. I want Deputies to remember what it is. They have contended that the standard of living of our people has been reduced by Government action. The evidence I have adduced, so far, shows—conclusively, to my mind—that, in fact, there has been no diminution in the standard of living at all and that, in so far as the cost of living has increased, it has not increased here more, proportionately, than in any other country. I am sure that even Deputy Dillon would not suggest that Government policy here has influenced conditions in the United Kingdom, Germany, the U.S.A., Australia, Canada or New Zealand.
Except to increase their agricultural exports.
Let us deal with the question that arises most directly from this motion and ask if the actual retail prices of commodities which could be regarded as necessaries of life have been increased by reason of the operation of taxes, levies, duties and so forth and, if so, what those commodities are. Let us also see what the consequence would be of the removal of these taxes, levies, duties and the like. Let us start with beef and mutton. The national average retail price of beef and mutton, as ascertained by my Department four times a year for the purpose of supplying to the appropriate authority the information on which the cost-of-living index is based, was this year less than it was on the corresponding date of 1931. Again, I am deliberately selecting 1931 for the purpose of this comparison because the contention in the motion is that any increase in the cost of living that may have taken place in relation to the standard of living of our people was due to certain taxes, levies, imposts and the like. These taxes, levies and imposts began to operate in 1932.
Therefore, the only fair comparison is between the conditions now existing and those existing in 1931. So far as beef and mutton are concerned, therefore, there has been no increase in price. On the contrary, the national average retail price is lower now than it was in 1931. It is lower in the Saorstát than it was in Great Britain, because the British also produce this national average retail price for the purpose of preparing their own cost-of-living figures. I think that disposes of beef and mutton as one necessary of life, as one item of food, the price of which must be taken into account in any calculation of this sort or any investigation such as Deputy Morrissey has asked the Dáil to undertake.
Bacon has been mentioned here this evening. It is quite true that the price of bacon here at the moment is from 16 to 20 per cent. higher than in 1931, and I am not going to deny that that increase is, in the main, due to the operation of Government policy. Government policy was designed to effect that increase. It endeavoured to effect the increase in order to secure that a better return would be obtained by the producers of the primary product, and in that we have succeeded. I find that there is a certain difficulty perhaps in speaking at undue length upon the question of bacon prices, because they are being investigated at the moment by the Prices Commission, but there are certain facts worth noting in relation to them. I have heard Deputies opposite frequently talk about the price of bacon here compared with Great Britain, and I refer them in this connection to another source of reliable information —a paper called The Grocer, which is published in Great Britain—in which they will find set out the retail prices of bacon. It is a common device with Deputies opposite to compare the prices of the cheapest cuts in Great Britain with the prices of the dearest cuts in the Irish Free State, and to show that the price is against us, but if you take one class of bacon against another, it will be found that the retail price here at the moment is not higher and, in respect of many cuts is lower, than in Great Britain.
Nonsense.
I will send the Deputy a copy of The Grocer.
Give them to the House.
It is also worth nothing here that, taking a particular type of bacon about which Deputy Dillon talks, streaky bacon, the increase in the price here between 1931 and 1937 was 16.9 per cent. The price of the same bacon in Great Britain in the same period increased by 20.8 per cent., so that the increase here was less than in Great Britain.
Salty bacon is the bacon to which I habitually refer. Perhaps the Minister could get the figures for that. If he had lived, as the President did, in his youth in the country, he would know what it was.
I have the figures for streaky only, because, apparently, when compiling the cost-of-living index, it is only streaky bacon they take into account.
Ask the President afterwards if he knows what it is.
We have put a tax on imported bacon. In 1931 there was imported into this country bacon to the value of £400,000. Last year we imported none.
You did nothing of the sort.
Deputy Cole's bacon was smuggled across the Border, but, so far as the officials know, we imported none.
You did nothing of the sort. The tax on bacon was put on before you.
I am merely referring to one fact which even Deputy Gorey will not deny, that, in 1931, £400,000 worth of bacon was imported.
Oh, yes.
And last year none was imported.
How many pigs were imported this year?
That tax was imposed before you came in. You did nothing of the sort.
Am I right in assuming that Deputy Gorey is boasting that the tax, levy or similar impost on bacon was imposed at his behest by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government? Is that what the Deputy is boasting about?
What was that?
Is it Deputy Gorey's boast that the tax, levy or similar impost on bacon is of Cumann na nGaedheal origin?
Certainly.
Imposed by them?
Yes.
And the Deputy is boasting of that?
Yes.
Is the Deputy going to support this motion? Here is a motion moved by a member of the Deputy's Party demanding the immediate removal of that tax, levy or similar impost.
It does nothing of the kind.
Is he going to support that motion—
"and is of opinion that all such impositions should be forthwith abolished"?
What levy did the Minister put on bacon? Let him tell the House about that.
The motion says quite clearly, and the words convey to my mind the same meaning as they convey to the mind of any other Deputy, that all such impositions shall be forthwith abolished. Could we abolish them all without abolishing Deputy Gorey's tariff? Is he going to vote for that motion?
The ones you put on.
Are you going to vote for that motion?
Yes.
For the abolition of all such impositions?
The ones you put on.
A free market for bacon—£400,000 worth of foreign bacon coming in and being sold in Irish shops. Is Deputy Gorey standing for that?
No.
And yet he is going to vote for this motion?
Will the Minister devote the last five minutes to the motion?
Certainly. Is that not in the motion? The Deputy moved it and he should be able to explain it. Does he mean the abolition of all these forthwith?
The ill-considered ones, the corrupt ones.
Deputy Gorey must put in an amendment because there is nothing in this about ill-considered tariffs. It calls for the abolition of them all.
Tell us about the levies you put on bacon.
In any event, I understand that Deputy Gorey wants a free market for bacon, and while Deputy Gorey does not want a free market for bacon, he wants the removal of taxes, levies and similar impositions upon bacon. Is that right?
I will deal with that at another time. I will tell the Minister all about it when I get the opportunity. I will tell him more than he knows.
Are you going to tell us about the levies you put on bacon?
I am not.
I thought you would not, but I will tell you about them.
The Deputy can tell me whatever he likes. I am pointing out that the price of bacon in this country since 1931 has risen proportionately less than in Great Britain, and that the price here at the moment for many classes of bacon is less than in Great Britain. I am pointing out that, at the same time, the farmers of this country are getting substantially higher prices for pigs and, furthermore, that there has been reserved for them, and them only, a market which in 1931 was valued at almost £500,000 and that justifies our policy.
What has become of the pig population, then?
Fresh pork is another pig product and the average national retail price in 1937 was 13.5 per cent. less than it was in 1931. The price of eggs is lower than it was in 1931——
Hear, hear—a true word for you.
I am becoming quite confused——
The Minister has been confused since he started.
Deputy Morrissey must not have discussed this motion with his colleagues at all because none of them seems to agree with him. Does Deputy Gorey want the taxes off bacon? He does. Does Deputy Dillon think the price of eggs is too low? He does. Deputy Bennett complained here that the price of butter was too low, and Deputy Brasier is agitating for an increase in the price of wheat to 36/- a barrel. Which of the Deputies supports the motion, except the seconder, and does he?
The Minister has been confused since 25 minutes past 9.
Two members of that Party are prepared to stand over the motion in full. The rest of them all have mental reservations. The price of butter here at present is 7 per cent. higher than in 1931. We have here to-day Deputies representing Limerick and the adjacent counties in the Fine Gael interest putting forward for the consideration of this House, as the first motion moved by their Party, a proposal to reduce the price of butter. They complain that the price is too high; that the measures taken to increase the price of butter to the creameries should be abolished; and that the tax on imported butter should be removed so that foreign butter can be imported. That is the first motion moved by Fine Gael in this House. Are these members for the creamery counties to spend the rest of their lives explaining to their constituents why that motion appeared here, because they secured election upon a public promise given by them that if their Party secured a majority the price of milk to the farmers was going to be increased by a ½d. a gallon? Am I right in saying that the whole election programme of the Fine Gael Party in these counties was an increase in the price of milk by a ½d. a gallon? Will they tell me how they could increase the price of milk and at the same time abolish the levy on butter and abolish the import duty on butter?
Settle the economic war —that is the way you can do it.
At the very most, the price you will get for your butter is the market price in London.
