This motion is to be concluded to-night at 10.30.
Private Deputies' Business. - Control of Prices—Motion (Resumed).
That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that in relation to many essential commodities manufacturers and distributors are in the habit of charging exorbitant profits and that therefore the selling price of such commodities is excessive, and accordingly considers that the Government should forthwith introduce proposals for the purpose of securing effective control over profits and prices.
—Deputy Norton.
Debate resumed on the following amendment to the motion:—
To delete all words after the word "opinion", and substitute therefor the following:—
"that a serious danger has arisen for all sections of the community due to the high and rising cost of commodities essential to health and life, and requests the Government to take immediate and effective action to reduce by every possible means, including if necessary by subsidy, the cost of the main necessaries of life; and to set up a committee or committees which shall sit in public (1) to examine without delay into the causes of the high prices of the most important commodities in order to prevent profiteering, and (2) to ascertain the steps necessary to bring about a general reduction of prices."
—Deputy O'Higgins.
It is not too easy to bring ourselves back from the distant and somewhat uncertain future in which we have been dealing for the past half-hour and come down from the high heaven in which Deputy McCarthy and Deputy Dillon have been represented as sitting with white wings, to deal with the prices of commodities in use by the common people. I was saying last week, when this debate was adjourned, that I did not consider the Motion before the House as being a wise and appropriate step towards the solution of the difficulty of high prices. I was saying that I regarded the amendment as a more prudent suggestion and one that might be capable of giving good results.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce spent a considerable length of time last week in trying to convince us that there had been no profiteering during the emergency. He made ample and adequate use of all the statistics upon which he could lay his hands. No matter how many figures a Minister may quote and no matter what complicated statistics he may lay before the people, he can never convince the ordinary man in the street that there has not been a considerable amount of exploitation and profiteering. No ordinary citizen of this city or of the country but has personal experience of either being exploited and robbed himself or of being a witness to other people being exploited and robbed. Much was said here about the high cost of living. I do not think that any Deputy mentioned the high cost of dying, but a case came to my notice some time ago of a small farmer who was stricken with a fatal illness. His wife, being a prudent woman, went to town, while he was still dangerously ill, to purchase the last garment in which to clothe him for the grave. Having selected a habit which was considered suitable, the price was much higher than she had anticipated and she was forced to defer the purchase for about six weeks.
When her husband died, she returned to the same shop and found exactly the same habit for sale. She had taken careful note of it and she found that, while the same garment was there, the price was 100 per cent. higher than when she attempted to purchase it six weeks before. No amount of reasoning or of argument and no figures or statistics could convince that woman that she was not being robbed and exploited. I do not wish to condemn the shopkeeper in that case. He might say that, though he had this article in stock, he was justified in raising the price in proportion to the general increase in prices. He might reason that, if there were a collapse in prices later, he might have to mark down the price of some of his stuff. Even Deputy Dillon, who professes to know everything about the distributive business and who, I am sure, does know a good deal, more or less admitted that there was profiteering when he said that competition is the only way to prevent profiteering. We know that competition, has, to a great extent, been suspended during the past six or seven years. Regardless of what the Minister may say, there is widespread profiteering.
I do not agree that the Minister and Deputies Norton and Larkin were justified in trying to drag the farmer into the dock and make him appear as one of the principal culprits in regard to the increase in general prices. It is true that agricultural prices have increased since the beginning of the war. It is true that, as compared with prices in 1938, they have increased somewhat more than the official cost-of-living figure. But it must be remembered, that in 1938, the balance between the cost of living and agricultural prices was not fair to the farmer. The cost of living figure in 1938 stood at 173 as compared with 100 in 1914. Agricultural prices, taken at 100 in 1914, stood at 183 in 1934 and had declined slowly to 111 in 1938. That is to say, agricultural prices were 62 points below the cost of living figure in 1938. If that disparity between agricultural prices and the cost-of-living figure has been partially rectified since 1938, the farmer is not to be blamed or condemned. I say that the disparity between farming prices and the cost of living, generally, has not been completely rectified. We know that the basic year for fixing agricultural prices was shifted from 1914 to 1938, while the basic year for the cost-of-living index remains at 1914. I have made some calculations and I have put the two figures on a par. I find that agricultural prices stand to-day at 220 as compared with the figure for 1914. That is an increase of 120 since 1914.
The cost-of-living figure, however, stands to-day at 295, as compared with the figure for 1914. That is an increase of 195. Therefore, we find that the cost of living is still substantially above the agricultural prices. That is borne out also by the fact that the cost-of-living figure, based on food items only, is very considerably below the cost-of-living figure, based on all items. It is in the price of necessary goods other than agricultural products that the real increase has taken place. I am not going to put any class or section of the community in the dock in regard to that increase. Anybody with a spark of intelligence must realise that there was a very substantial increase in the price of manufactured goods which had to be imported. There was a very considerable increase, in fact an enormous increase, in the price of the raw materials required both for agriculture and industry, but what was a much more important contributory factor in the increase in prices was the inability to secure certain essential raw materials for agriculture and industry.
Some of the things which contributed very much to an increase in prices were not the things that could be purchased at a high price but the things that could not be purchased at any price, and for which substitutes had to be provided in a very expensive way. There are many such products in industry, and one outstanding essential commodity of that kind in agriculture —artificial fertilisers. The farmer could not obtain these in sufficient quantity at any price. That added enormously to his costs of production by reducing the output of his land.
These were factors which could not have been overcome or avoided, but a factor which could have been overcome, and which should have been avoided, was the factor of profiteering. The proposals in the motion before the House suggest a very simple manner for dealing with profiteering. That is to put the entire community into a strait-jacket and regiment and regulate the entire community, and regulate and regiment all prices. I do not consider such a method possible of success. I do not think that, even if we had a totalitarian State here in which everybody would be controlled and regulated, that conditions would be perfect. As long as human beings inherit the weaknesses and the vices which are common to humanity, there will always be exploitation and a certain measure of profiteering, and I am sure that in the most rigidly controlled totalitarian States there is profiteering, not profiteering perhaps in the matter of prices, but that you have selfish sergeant majors and higher officers in such States who manage to appropriate for themselves most of the good things of life.
It was suggested by some Deputies that there should be a rigid Standstill Order in regard to prices while no similar control would be exercised in regard to wages. I do not think that such an approach to the problem would get us anywhere. Wages and prices mean exactly the same thing. Wages represent the price which the worker obtains for his work, and prices are the wages which the manufacturer, the trader and the farmer get for their work—and for their industrial enterprise.
If you are going to have a Standstill Order in regard to one you must have it in regard to all. I think there are wiser and more prudent ways of approaching this problem than by rigid and complete control. Profiteering, as I have said, is due to the fact that keen competition is not able to operate as freely as when goods are in plentiful supply. Shortages tempt certain people to take advantage of the rest of the community, and as far as it is possible for the State to prevent that it should be done, but no action should be taken which would completely disorganise production and distribution.
The Minister, as it is natural for Minister, was very keen in seeking suggestions. I am going to submit a few to him which, if adopted, might help to protect and safeguard the interests of the people until supplies of goods again become normal. I am going to support, first of all, the request made in the amendment for a public inquiry into all matters relating to trade and distribution. I think that a public inquiry would help inasmuch as it would bring to the knowledge of the common people facts which they are anxious to know, facts regarding the supplies available, the prices at which they can be obtained wholesale, and the prices charged for them in different parts of the country. Facts of that kind are available, and the more knowledge the public have of them—the more light is thrown on the operations of those who seek to exploit the public —the better it will be for those who want to have these matters remedied.
My second suggestion is that there ought to be close co-operation between the people, the Press and the Government in directing and pressing forward a publicity campaign against foolish spending. There is nothing that would be more helpful in the matter of bringing down prices than if the people could be induced to refrain from buying, wherever possible. During the past week there has been in the Press a strong public campaign against the high cost of living and in favour of some action to relieve the situation. I think it is regrettable that side by side with that campaign in the Press we have appeals, inducements and incitements in the advertising columns of the Press to the people who buy this, that and the other thing. The woman who reads the articles pointing out the extent to which profiteering has developed, as well as letters in the newspapers from "Hard-pressed Housewife" and other such people, may be deeply impressed and may make a strong resolution to avoid buying, wherever possible, until prices come down. But immediately she turns to the advertising columns and sees that a delightful frock or an exciting hat or a glamorous new shade of lipstick is to be had all her good resolutions evaporate. I am prepared to bet at least 5/- that no newspaper will publish that suggestion, that newspapers should refrain from publishing advertisements urging people to buy things which they could do without, but I think such praiseworthy action on the part of the Press would give a lead to the people and would, I think, be helpful.
I am in favour, although it may not be a popular thing to say, of certain essential foodstuffs being subsidised in order that the poor may be able to obtain them at a reasonable price. It is sound policy to give certain essential things to the poor, such as foodstuffs and boots, which are so necessary to health, at less than the cost of production, where that is possible, just as it is often good policy to tax whiskey and luxuries and give them to certain classes of the public at more than the cost of production. That is a policy which is sometimes described as feeding the dog on his own tail. I do not so describe it. I think it is more a policy of helping those in real need, partly at the expense of those who have money to spend on luxuries.
I have a suggestion to make which is more or less in the nature of an experiment. It has often occurred to me, having regard to the limited facilities which many working people in the cities and towns have for cooking vegetables or porridge and food of that kind that requires a good deal of cooking, if it would not be possible for some non-profit-making organisation to undertake the cooking of such commodities. That idea was suggested to me by a citizen of Dublin and it is a sound one. I believe it would be helpful and would relieve the poorer elements of the community in the matter of cooking essential food.
When the House last adjourned I was urging the Minister to relieve the fuel situation by organising an extensive drive for the production of firewood until turf again becomes available, which may not be for six or seven months. A move of that kind would be helpful in meeting the basic needs of working people generally.
I think all Deputies recognise that the Government's attempt to control prices has failed. The Minister attempted a justification of Dublin butchers receiving an increase in the price of meat on the ground that they have to pay 72/- per cwt. for prime cattle. He forgot to inform the House of the number of butchers in provincial towns up to 100 miles from Dublin who pay farmers 72/- per cwt. for prime cattle and we have provincial butchers often charging more for their meat than what is charged by the Dublin butchers, although they pay only half wages and half rates compared to city dwellers. Dublin in that respect is the guide for the rest of Ireland.
Potatoes are controlled at 1/8 a stone in Dublin. When you controlled the price for Dublin, why had you not provincial areas in mind, and why did you not regulate the prices for provincial areas? Potatoes were being sold at 1/- a stone not 50 miles from the Dublin market, but immediately you controlled the price here, the country price went up to the same level and now people are paying 1/8 a stone for potatoes not 500 yards away from where they are grown. The same price prevails in the country districts, where wages and rates are not up to city levels. The Minister may argue that the agricultural wage has increased by 84 per cent. In such circumstances as I have described, how can you expect the poorly paid worker in a rural area, on the bog, under the county council or engaged in forestry, to exist?
I will instance for the Minister the cost of keeping patients in Grangegorman Mental Hospital, one of the best managed institutions in Ireland. In 1938 the cost per patient for food, not including attendance by nurses and doctors, was £11 8s. 7d. per year. In the year 1945-46 it had risen to £21 6s. 5d. In that institution the food is not purchased from small shopkeepers, but is obtained, through contracts, in bulk and all middlemen's profits are eliminated. Notwithstanding that, the cost of food has doubled in a few years. The worker in the rural areas is expected to purchase the necessaries of life although his wages have been increased by only 84 per cent., according to the Minister's figures. How can he exist when he has to purchase in small quantities and compete against highly-paid workers?
Something should be done to control prices more effectively. I am not attacking Irish manufacturers, but I suggest some of them are taking advantage of the situation. I fully realise the serious position we would have been in if we had not produced certain commodities here during the war. We may not be able to control the price of what is imported. I am disappointed, knowing the good officials we have in the Minister's Department, that they are so easily deceived by arguments put up by the manufacturers. The Minister referred to the boot trade. A shopkeeper showed me a pair of boots suitable for a child of six years. The wholesale price was 19/6 and the retailer was allowed to charge £1 for the boots. He told me there would be 2/- worth of leather in the boots, the heels and uppers, but the rest was composed of hard-pressed paper. When the Minister allowed the manufacturers a certain profit they declared that they would supply the best of leather, but apart from the uppers and heels, the boots are composed of compressed paper.
What is the position in the rural areas now? A man may be earning £2 or £2 10s. 0d. a week. He has to buy sufficient food for his family. How can he buy clothes and boots for his children? He has to pay £1 for boots for one child and, according to the retailer, the leather in the boots is worth 2/-. This shoemaker also informed me that, although the Minister has controlled the price of leather at 3/- per lb., that is leather sold by manufacturers here in Dublin, if a poor man goes in to purchase a few ounces or ½ lb. of leather to sole the boots of his children, he is charged at the rate of 4d. per ounce. Excess profits are, therefore, extracted from the poor person who can ill afford to pay that price.
No matter what the Minister may have done to control prices these traders are getting around his Orders. I think it would be better to have an arrangement such as existed in 1920 under which there were voluntary committees in each area, the members of which knew local circumstances. They allowed certain profits after taking into consideration rates and expenses in each area. At present one sees the same article marked at different prices in different shops. In the case of clothing, one will see a suit marked at £20 in certain streets, presumably to meet the requirements of English visitors, while the same suit is sold at a lower figure in other streets. Yet the same wage is being paid to the workers who make these suits in the various streets and the fact that a suit is sold in a particular street should have no influence on the price. During the last month we saw a number of sales here in Dublin at which articles were sold at less than half the controlled price. I am sure the drapers of Dublin were not giving away these articles or that they were not working at a loss for the benefit of the Government or the public. If they were not selling them at a loss, they must have been making huge profits up to the time of the sales. We are told that wages have increased and that they are responsible for the increased cost of various commodities, but the fact is that the highest increases that have been given are not sufficient to overtake the increase in the cost of living. The Government will have to take the matter more seriously than it has done up to the present because no matter what increases are given in wages, if the Minister is not able to control profits, certain individuals can charge what they like so that there is absolutely no use in workers getting increases in wages.
The Minister made the point that the Standstill Order in regard to wages had been removed but that has not happened in regard to wages paid by public bodies. Although the Minister gave an assurance that the Minister for Local Government would consider sympathetically claims for increases by road workers and men in pensionable jobs, I am aware of a number of cases in which public boards unanimously passed resolutions requesting the Local Government Department to sanction increases of wages to enable these workers to meet the cost of living, but no action has been taken in the Department and apparently no action will be taken until the men go out on strike to enforce their claims. Again we see the unfortunate old age pensioners to whom increases were promised and to whom no increases have yet been granted. When one sees the figures showing the increased cost of maintaining patients in institutions, one must wonder how these unfortunate pensioners are able to exist.
Deputy Cogan made some reference to some people here advocating a totalitarian State but I do not think anybody in the House suggested that method of dealing with the situation. We have merely suggested that the Government should take immediate action to inquire into the methods whereby huge profits have been earned in certain trades. I am sure no Deputy objects to any manufacturer obtaining a fair profit on any of his products; what we do object to is the method by which different prices are charged in different shops for the same article. I do not want to delay the House unduly but I should like to point out to the Minister that his method of control has failed, particularly in regard to rural areas, and that when he was regulating the price of commodities in Dublin, he was merely giving encouragement to the man living 100 miles from Dublin to increase his prices. I am well aware that the farmers in County Wicklow are not receiving prices for their cattle which the Minister suggested were being paid for prime cattle here in Dublin where purchasers have to meet the competition of foreign buyers. I would ask the Minister to make some arrangement whereby there might be a differentiation in prices outside the City of Dublin. There is a completely different set of circumstances in the country to those obtaining in Dublin, where high wages are paid and where plenty of foreigners are coming in, well supplied with money which they are anxious to get rid of. The unfortunate worker of a local body down the country has to compete with the purchasing power of these people in the cities.
We are all aware that the middle classes, men who are trying to live on salaries that have not been increased to any great extent, are also seriously hit by the constant increases in the cost of living. The facts and figures that the Minister or anyone else may produce will not change the opinion of the person who has only a few pounds to draw upon to meet the huge increase in the cost of living. I would ask the Minister to reconsider the position not alone from the point of view of the cities but also from the point of view of provincial towns and rural areas so as to ensure that, when regulating profits in future, he will consider especially rural areas where the rate of wages is much lower than in Dublin. When considering profits in these areas he should also remember that employers there have not to pay the same rates or taxes as those in the city and that considerations which apply to manufacturers in Dublin are not applicable to manufacturers throughout the country.
I think the first thing to recognise in this situation is that certain factors are outside our control and that in so far as these factors influence the cost of articles required here, we cannot do anything about them. The price of certain commodities which we have to import or are importing, have gone up and may go up much further, but these prices are governed by conditions over which we have no control. Nobody will find fault with the Government on that head. In connection with the sphere of activity, however, over which the Government has control, I think the House and the country are entitled to a better explanation and a better outlook for the future than that presented by the Minister last week. I think it should be recognised that our first duty here is to provide for those sections of the community who cannot, or who are least able by reason of their small incomes, to make adequate provision for their essential requirements.
We have to remember that the general increase in the price of commodities has resulted in these commodities being placed outside the purchasing power of the ordinary citizen in many cases. The particular classes I refer to are those depending on old age pensions and on relief, and, above those, the class whose wages are controlled, whose wages, subject to certain increases during the emergency or since the lifting of the Standstill Order, have been controlled or who have been in some occupation where they received no increase. These people find themselves faced with an ever-rising burden in respect of essentials.
The first matter we should consider is food, and while the Minister has quoted extensively to show that the cost of certain commodities, including clothing, has risen I think we should inquire carefully into the situation which has developed in connection with meat and the situation which is likely to develop in connection with bread and flour. Since the Minister spoke last week, people have come to me and have informed me that meat in Dublin has gone up in the past two weeks by as much as 2d. per lb. and that this increase does not relate merely to the choicest cuts, legs of lamb or ribs of beef, but is being imposed by many butchers on all qualities of meat sold. It is recognised that these butchers have had to meet an increase in wages recently, and, in addition, have been obliged to pay an increased price for fat cattle in the Dublin market. These two factors have, without any exorbitant profits being made, forced butchers to put up the price of meat, but when that situation has arisen and has brought about such a rapid increase, we have to inquire how long increases in wages which mean an increase in prices can be permitted.
I listened with great interest to Labour Deputies who spoke and I think they recognise fully that any increase in wages which means an increase in the price of an article is practically useless. The bulk of the workers in this city and in the country realise that wage increases which result in increasing the price of the article they produce or manufacture, if it does not directly affect them by bringing about an immediate rise in the cost of living, will in a short time do so. I think that workers realise fully the situation which has developed, but whether that situation is appreciated to the same extent by employers is not quite clear. I think that many employers, the moment there is any claim for an increase in wages, say they have to increase their prices. All during the emergency, the control kept on wages, apart from the comparatively mild amounts granted under Bonus Orders, was by and large far more severe than any control in respect of the margin of profit allowed to manufacturers, with the result that in most industries there was a margin, when the wages standstill Order was lifted last September, which in a number of cases would have permitted an increased wage to be paid without a resultant increase in the price of the article.
So far as that is concerned, the first thing to inquire into is whether increases in wages are going to result in an increase in the price of the commodity manufactured, sold or handled. The first people in the House to recognise the effects of that situation are the representatives of the trade unions. The Minister is inclined to think that, relatively, increases in wages should not mean a similar increase in price. Meat may be a bad example, but certainly the increase in wages, coupled with the increase in the price of cattle and sheep—particularly cattle—has resulted in a substantial increase. Turning to flour, one notes that the increase proposed to be paid to bakers will mean, according to the Minister's figures, an increase of not less than 2d. per loaf.
Faced with that situation, the first thing the Government and the Dáil should do is to inquire into all State expenditure, which could either be reduced or eliminated. Taking the figures in the Finance Accounts for 1938-39, and the figures for last year, I find that the deadweight debt has gone up by £19,000,000. That alone means that, in interest charges, a sum of £500,0000 or—adding interest and repayment charges — approximately £1,000,000 a year is necessary to pay off the charges. On the basis of that figure, the House must realise—certainly many Deputies will realise—that public expenditure has risen by leaps and bounds. Anyone who considers the increases in the prices of essential commodities or imported articles realises that, if these increases are due to factors outside our control or to the fact that better prices are being paid to farmers, there is nothing we can do about them. There is no method of reducing the expenditure or limiting the burden which will fall, as a result, on the community, but when we see unessential expenditure getting preference and priority and when we see the energies of the Government and certain Departments being directed in particular to what I describe as luxury expenditure, the first thing to do is to see how much of that luxury expenditure can be eliminated, or to what extent it can be reduced.
Reference has been made to tourists. Nobody objects to the tourists coming in, and in fact most people recognise that their influence on the position is not as great as it is sometimes said to be; but when we find the Tourist Board contemplating vast expenditure in the coming year—not merely expenditure to assist or to enable existing hoteliers or proprietors of guest houses to improve their facilities but large-scale expenditure on the acquisition of large premises which subsequently are to be run as hotels at prices which the average citizen cannot pay—one realises that here is one example of expenditure which should be limited. Again, we should consider the proposal to continue expenditure on industrial alcohol —a project which was originally designed as a method of using up surplus potatoes—to provide an industry which is to seek raw materials elsewhere because sufficient potatoes are not available and which, having got the raw materials, having processed them and having produced the commodity it was established to produce, will sell that commodity at something like 3/6 per gallon.
There are a number of minor examples of a similar kind in respect of which certain people may argue that only £5,000 or £6,000 is involved in one case and £10,000 in another. I have in mind, particularly, the Institute of Advanced Studies. In the position in which this country finds itself at the moment, we cannot permit ourselves to indulge in luxury expenditure. We cannot permit ourselves to indulge in any form of unnecessary expenditure and the argument that any one of these items of expenditure is relatively small is, in my view, a dangerous argument, because it has arisen out of the tendency here during the emergency to regard high expenditure as necessary, to regard high expenditure on defence and other protective measures as essential, as expenditure we should not avoid committing ourselves to. But if we aggregate the cost of all these luxury services or institutions and add to them the cost of an increased Civil Service, an increase which is bound to take place with the establishment of two new Ministries and on top of that the cost of an army amounting to something like £4,500,000—an army which, having cost that amount, is, according to the Minister, to be badly equipped because he cannot say at the moment what equipment will be available—we see how not merely has the cost of essentials, the cost of subsidising meat or flour or turf in order to reduce the price in the cities, but the total cost of Government has steadily mounted over a number of years, that total cost being secured by increased expenditure, by borrowing or by some other method. Then we see the situation in which we find ourselves. There is a headless spiral of inflation in which wages rise and then the price of the commodity rises or, as happens most often, the price of the article rises first and wages are brought up so that they may bear some relation to the resultant increased cost of living.
The cost of essentials and of luxuries and State expenditure in every branch and section have risen and, therefore, despite the cessation of the emergency in many quarters, this year we have a higher Budget and, as far as we can see, there will be a still higher burden to meet in future. In that situation, the first thing to do is to cut out luxury expenditure. On examination it will be found that the taxation which has been imposed for the purpose of luxury expenditure would be sufficient to subsidise meat or flour or any other essential foodstuff that would require to be subsidised. While in the normal way subsidisation is regarded as having a directly inflationary tendency, we have in this country, in comparison with the small amount devoted to subsidisation, mounted expenditure on all kinds and types of schemes directly or indirectly promoted or sponsored by the Government, all of which have increased the burden on the citizen. Even the most ardent supporter of that type of expenditure would be prepared to admit that such expenditure could be reduced and the money so saved, when aggregated, would be sufficient to subsidise both meat and bread and any other essential food stuff that it was found necessary to subsidise.
It has been argued here that the public should co-operate and that, so far, public co-operation has not been what it might be. That is a matter of opinion. Some people consider that traders found guilty of breaches of licensing or rationing laws have not received adequate punishment. It is a matter for this House to fix the penalty for breaches of its regulations and it is the duty of the district justice to inflict the punishment, but to suggest that the courts have not been doing their duty is in a way a reflection on the legislative penalties laid down here.
It has been suggested that the public can co-operate by not paying higher prices, by refusing to pay if overcharged. Deputies should realise that the ordinary woman who comes from the suburbs to shop in town or who comes from one part of the city to another, has something more to do than to travel from one shop to another in search of commodities at a lower price. Everyone knows that transport difficulties are sufficient burden on the housewife and shopper to prevent them from undertaking further journeys in search of low prices. The first thing to do is to inquire into cases where overcharging is reported, to ensure that all cases of overcharging are brought to light and that proper and effective measures are taken forthwith, to have an inquiry instituted into black market operations. Chocolate has been mentioned as an article sold on the black market. Chocolate is not a very essential commodity but it is obvious that there is a ramp in chocolate. You cannot come out of a football match, a race meeting or the pictures without being inundated with offers of good chocolate at a high price, but if you go to a regular sweet shop you will find supplies are sold out, not merely at the beginning of the month, but all the time.
I think the public have co-operated as well as they might be expected, in view of the difficulties under which they are labouring. If the public are expected to co-operate they are entitled to co-operation from the Department and the general impression is that price control is not as effective as it should be. It is generally recognised, I think, that manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers should have a fair profit and that the incentive to anyone in business is a profit, and that unless a person can make a profit he will not engage in the particular business. But over and above a legitimate and fair profit, if the manufacturers are making a profit on essential articles of food or clothing, then it is the Department's responsibility to inquire into that matter and to see how these profits are made, to see how expenditure might be cut down and how the burden on the community can be reduced.
I had occasion, in view of this debate, to inquire into the price of certain articles of clothing. This may be a bad time of the year from the point of view of clothiers because there is generally a reduction in prices after Christmas. I found one article marked down from 39/10 to 29/6, another article marked down from 25/- to 22/6, and another from 2/4 to 1/9. I give these as examples. If shopkeepers are able to reduce the prices, particularly as much as 10/-, then the responsibility is on the Government and the Department to inquire into the regulations and to inquire into the original fixed price.
The Minister has suggested that this is a matter on which we should pool our wisdom. Deputies have suggested that it is a national problem and that the entire wisdom of the Dáil should be concentrated on it. I recognise that it is necessary in a matter of this kind that there should be a pooling of wisdom. I will say that the Minister has an entirely different mind and mentality from many of his colleagues in bringing Bills before this House but generally if the Government can steam-roll a measure through, they steam-roll it, and if they are in a fix they ask for co-operation. I submit that if co-operation is to be expected, the House should get co-operation from the Government in fair weather as in foul. If we get it in fair weather we will be prepared to give it to the Government in foul weather.
The rising cost of living has become the most serious and significant factor in the social and economic life of this country. The position demands that we should approach the matter with stern realism and deal with the difficulties in a factual way. During the past six years there were shortages of practically every commodity. That upset the national balance. There were shortages of food, fuel, clothing and so on. In spite of that, we find that the volume of direct taxation has grown to an alarming extent. We have the position, therefore, of increased taxation coincident with a decline in production. That cardinal fact is one of the most serious reflections that could be made upon the ability of the Government to control prices. We are anxious to find out exactly where the profits come in. It has been the custom in most industrial concerns to emphasise in their reports the small percentage of profits on each article sold. The kernel of the problem lies in finding out how far the charges on the article go before a profit is returned. There are some factors which are very serious in upsetting our position—wages, profits and hours of work. The public is entitled to find out from the Minister in regard to industries and firms, particularly tariff industries, what the profits are and to what extent wages have gone up commensurate with the increased costs and increased production. Rumours have it that bonuses are being issued and that many firms have floated their companies with very fictitious and unreal amounts of capital, that some of them are, as a matter of fact, dependent on goodwill and tariffs for their existence. The Minister should tell us to what extent that has influenced the cost of living.
To reduce costs, the Minister must be prepared to adopt a bold plan, based on national requirements. He told us the other day that there were two factors principally responsible for the increased cost of living—the high cost of imports and the high prices paid to farmers for their products. In fair play, the Minister should have mentioned that the cost of every article the farmer buys for the conduct of his business has gone up by over 200 per cent. He should have told us why there is a shortage of milk and butter in Dublin and throughout the country. In fact, this evening in Leinster House the waitresses found it difficult to get sufficient milk for their purpose. Why? Because the farmers feel they are not being properly paid for milk. The Minister should have told us, too, that during the past year our export trade of cattle decreased by 100,000 as the farmers could not see their way to feed the calves, since it did not pay them. These factors influenced the cost of production very materially.
When telling us of the contributing factors for the increased cost of living, the Minister should have gone into more detail and not exactly blame the high cost of production on the farm alone. I would like to know if any undue profits have been made by certain tariff industries and, if so, to what amount. Has capital been increased in certain companies by fictitious devices? Unless we find out all the factors which have led up to the increase in the cost of living, we are only on the surface of the matter. If we want to find out the truth, we must examine every factor to the very hilt.
In the crisis which the country is facing at the moment, it is unfortunate that the Minister is a lone figure on the Government benches.
There is some other explanation for that.
Not doubting his ability to handle the matter and make a good case out of bad material, he should be supported here, and the House is entitled to expect that the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Social Welfare and for Public Health would be here. The Minister for Finance gave us some hope and encouragement that he is taking steps to stem the inflation that is undoubtedly here, and that is here with a vengeance.
It is the furniture vans that are coming in, too.
The Minister for Finance should have been here to listen to the views of the speakers on this motion, but he was conspicuous by his absence. It reminds me that we were told in school that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. In this crisis that is exactly what is happening. We are waiting for some disaster to overtake us before we wake up and take serious notice of the hardships our people are undergoing, due to the little they are able to get for the £, especially in food and clothing. I appeal in all sincerity to the Minister to fix the prices of essential food and clothing, and not at present prices. I would not like prices to be pegged at the present figure.
The Minister should do what has been done in other countries. Only this morning I had a letter from an Irishman in Paris who sent me some cuttings from the Paris papers. One of the headings is: "New moves in Blum's last week: his Cabinet plan to lower prices". M. Blum has asked all people selling goods to reduce their prices by 5 per cent. and he has got a wonderful response to his appeal throughout the country to prevent inflation extending. Instead of attacking those who have goods to sell here, if we made an appeal to them it might bring about good results. The Minister for Public Health should be here to explain to us the effect it would have on people who have only £1 to spend. There are some thousands in this country with only £1 to spend. Take the National Army man who has come out of the Army after 24 or 25 years' service. He has got £54 a year —a little over £1 per week—for himself and his family. With £54, he finds himself unable to get employment. He has just £2 a year over the amount which would entitle him to get work under any of the distress grants given by the Government. While getting only a miserable allowance, he is debarred from getting public work. I suggest that the prices of food and clothing in this city—other Deputies have spoken for the country—have gone too high already. Take the schoolboy of ten to 14 years of age. From the pair of shoe laces he wears to the cap on his head, there are greatly increased costs. The shoe laces are four times the price they were in 1938——
I should like to remind the Deputy that Deputy Norton should get an opportunity to reply.
I shall conclude very quickly. I know that others are anxious to get in and, having suffered in that way myself on some occasions, I shall make my remarks short. The cap of the schoolboy is five times the price it was in 1938. His boots are three times the price they were then and, owing to the quality of the leather, they have only half the life which boots before the war had. I implore the Minister to do something quickly in this matter. Let him call the business people together and appeal to them. If the appeal does not succeed, let him later take whatever steps he thinks necessary to see that those living on minimum wages will be supplied with their food requirements. He promised me he would make a statement a few days ago when I asked him to introduce legislation to see that children would get subsidised clothing on the lines of the subsidised boots. I am speaking of the children of the unemployed and of orphans and other members of families in receipt of small allowances. I join sincerely with the other members who put forward a very reasonable case to the Minister for urgent action. It is unfair to the Minister that he should be sitting on the Front Bench with 11 or 12 of his colleagues absent. They should be here to assure the House that everything possible will be done to see that inflation will not extend and that people will be able to buy at reasonable prices the necessaries of life.
On this motion, we had again a very lengthy and analytical speech from the Minister. We had a lengthy exposition of the elements which go to determine price-levels and we had a fairly lengthy review of price movements during the past six or seven years. Totted up, the speech could be said to be comprehensive but I think it could be said to be something more. It was, probably, the bleakest speech the Minister has delivered since September, 1939. When the Minister's speech is analysed, it simply amounts to this: that he believes the price-control methods of the past have been satisfactory, that we are extremely lucky to have those prices, that it is almost a privilege for us to pay them and that, so far as he is concerned, he can do nothing whatever to reduce prices from their present inordinately high level. The thing that struck me was that, while the Minister has usually a very realistic approach to problems and is not ill-equipped with daring in dealing with realities, we saw none of the Minister's war-time resourcefulness manifested in the speech he delivered last Thursday. The Minister, in fact, admitted that, so far as existing price levels were concerned, he was absolutely powerless to effect a reduction. He went further and indicated to the House that folk have pretty well to steel themselves to meeting further increases in prices. And this 18 months after the war in Europe has ended, when everybody had been expecting that the Government's powers would be utilised for the purpose of curbing the rapacity of profiteers as evidenced over the last six or seven years.
The most disturbing portion of the Minister's speech, so far as I was concerned, was that in which he almost took the field in justification of existing price levels. That, with the knowledge which must be at his disposal of the enormous profits that must have been made by many manufacturers and distributors during the war years, he allowed himself to be jockeyed into that position, is more than I can understand from the present Minister. It must be abundantly clear to himself and his Department that many folk, during the past six or seven years, have got richer than they ever dreamed they would be, that they have made profits larger than they ever dreamed they would make and that they are to-day wealthier than they ever dreamed they would be. In a situation such as that, in which wealth is now becoming almost arrogant in this city, we hear the Minister make a speech which, in effect, is a justification of existing high-price levels. A striking aspect of this debate is that no member of the Government Party has thought fit to intervene to say publicly what I am sure members of that Party have been hearing their constituents say to them. Persons of all political complexions complain to me of high-price levels. Strong supporters of the Government ask if it is not possible for the Government to do something to force down existing price levels. I am sure that what is being said to me is being said to members on the Government Benches. I do not think that they can hope to do anything effective as regards price levels by remaining silent during an important debate of this kind. The ordinary men and women in the cities and towns and in the countryside simply cannot pay present prices on their present rates of income. Instead of being offered some hope of early deliverance from the economic plight in which they are thus placed, they get in this House a lengthy review of price-problems from the Minister, seasoned with the implication that, so far as the Minister can see, not only is there to be no fall in price levels but they have got to accustom themselves to the inevitability of further increases in prices.
No matter what the Minister says, I want to tell him—I believe Deputies of his own Party could say the same thing to him, if they have not already said it at Party meetings—that the public believe they are being shamefully overcharged. When you have that opinion so unanimously expressed by the public, the Minister ought to pause and inquire whether or not the foundations of his price policy are correct, whether the public, with the keen interest they must have in price levels, have not, in this matter, a more realistic approach to the problem than the Minister has. One has only to take up the papers to realise what has happened during the past six or seven years as far as commercial and industrial activities are concerned. Shares which were worth only a few shillings in 1938 and 1939 are worth to-day 18/- and £1. Shares which were worth close to £1 in 1938 are worth more than £1 10s. Od. to-day. The cause of that is the profit which these companies are capable of earning with their enhanced turnover and the dividends they are able to pay.
Many of these drapery firms before the war had shares which were value for 2/- each. These shares to-day are value for close on £1, simply because during the war years these firms were able to make inordinately high profits. They were able to do that because of our faulty method of regulating prices. Not only have their shares gone up enormously in value, but they are still going up in value. The investing public is still being told to buy these shares—that they are worth still more —because it is realised that on present price levels and with the ratio of profit allowed—a glimpse at the balance sheets of those companies during the past six or seven years shows what those profits were—an investment in them will yield a substantial return to the investor.
I said to the Minister, in the course of my speech moving the motion, that in my opinion he ought to peg prices at their existing levels, not because these are reasonable levels—I think they are still extortionate levels—but that is a beginning, so far as a prices policy is concerned, he ought to say to all types of producers and distributors of goods or services, that they are not going to get more for their goods or services than they are getting now, and that these folk ought to be made pay whatever increases of wages have to be met out of their accumulated profits made during the past six or seven years. If they say that they cannot do that—and that may be the case in respect of a few firms or a few industries —then they should be called upon to make their case in public to show why that cannot be done. Bearing in mind what they got away with during the past six or seven years, if they cannot pay the increased wages out of their accumulated profits, as well as out of their existing profits, they ought to be dragged into public and be made substantiate their case for increased prices before the bar of public opinion. It is only when that has been done that the question of increasing prices ought to be considered. To permit those people to do what they are doing with the utmost impunity to-day—clamping on increases in wages to existing prices of goods or services—is simply not protecting the public from the inevitable spiral in prices which is the natural consequence of a policy of allowing them to proceed in this unbridled way.
In 1941 the Minister had no compunction whatever in pegging workers wages to the then existing levels. He said to the workers: "No more increases so far as you are concerned." In due course the workers had to make a strong and sustained case, a case that had to be vigorously put, in order to dislodge the Minister from that attitude. If that was good policy to apply to the wages of the workers—and a week's wages is the only thing that separates many of them from the workhouse—surely it is a reasonable policy in present circumstances to apply a similar practice in respect of prices, especially when we know that out of the accumulated profits made by manufacturers and distributors there is a substantial pool of reserves available to pay increases in wages, and available also, I suggest in many cases, to plough down price levels. When the workers pleaded the inadequacy of their wages in 1941 and said that they were not able to make ends meet on them, it did not beget from the Minister, or from the Government, any response in the form of permitting wage increases. The Government said "No; it is not in the national interest to allow you to get more wages; we cannot permit wages to go up because we do not want the volume of money in circulation to go up", but an entirely opposite policy was adopted in the case of manufacturers and of the producers and distributors of goods or services. I suggest to the Minister that the policy applied to wages in 1941 should now be applied to prices so as to enable the Minister to get the reins of price control in his own hands—to enable him to determine the direction in which prices are going to move in the next few years.
There was one aspect of this matter on which the Minister was strangely silent, namely, as to what is going to happen to the excess corporation profits tax which is being remitted. In the current year the Minister for Finance says that a sum amounting to £3,500,000 in excess corporation profits tax is to be remitted to a number of firms. He says it is to be remitted this year. It has been remitted from the end of December, so that the field has been opened further for the exploiter. This excess corporation profits tax, which was formerly a medium of taxation for the State, is now going to go wholly into the coffers of manufacturers or large distributors. We have had no indication from the Minister that he is going to insist that those who are now going to pocket what was formerly a medium of taxation will utilise that money for the purpose of reducing existing price levels. I say to the Minister that it is outrageous to permit those who have made untold wealth during the war to pocket this excess corporation profits tax as an additional profit to themselves. The Minister should have availed of this debate to say to those people that this excess corporation profits tax must be ploughed back in the form of lower price levels so far as the community is concerned. I want the Minister to ask himself whether he contemplates with equanimity permitting folk who made these enormous profits during the war years, to put into their pockets during the next few years the additional profits which were subject to excess corporation profits tax during the war years? If he lets these folk get away with the swag in that way, in addition to what they have already got, then it will be a crime against the people.
We are told by the Minister that meat and bread prices are likely to rise. If they are, that will be an outrageous imposition on people who are struggling to make ends meet in the present situation. To permit bread and meat prices to rise over their present levels is simply going to strain seriously the resources of every working-class family and of every person who has to live on a small income, people with no satisfactory means of equipping themselves with the wherewithal to meet a further rise in prices. Whatever machinery is resorted to, I suggest to the Minister that, so far as bread and meat prices and the prices of other necessaries are concerned, that every device must be resorted to to prevent them going still higher because a further rise would have a crippling effect on the community. The Minister ought to have availed of this debate, and I hope he will avail of the reflections of the debate, to set his face definitely against tolerating a further increase in prices. He must insist that present price levels are already too high, and that not alone is he not going to permit further increases but that he is going to explore every possible method of effecting a reduction in present price levels. If present price levels remain, or if prices rise further, then inevitably you will have demands for further increases in wages, because that is the only way the worker can get some compensation for a rise in prices, or can have the ability to meet an increase in the cost of living.
May I intervene to ask if it is intended to conclude tonight with a division on this?
Yes. I suggest to the Minister that, while he did not give much of an indication as to what his future probable attitude is to be to the wide volume of opinion on this question, he ought, nevertheless, reconsider his attitude. If he does, he will get co-operation for any policy to force prices down and prevent further increases in prices.
Question put—"That the words in Deputy Norton's motion which are proposed to be deleted by Deputy Mulcahy's motion"—stand.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 67.
Tá
- Beirne, John.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Davin, William.
- Everett, James.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Norton, William.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Bennett, George C.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Brennan, Martin.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Coburn, James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Colley, Harry.
- Coogan, Eamonn.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Furlong, Walter.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hughes, James.
- Keating, John.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Connor, John S.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
- Walsh, Richard.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Keyes and Corish; Níl: Deputies P. S. Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared lost.
The amendment, therefore, is carried and it now becomes a substantive motion.
Main motion, as amended, put.
The Dáil divided: Tá 27; Níl, 49.
Tá
- Beirne, John.
- Bennett, George C.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Coburn, James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Coogan, Eamonn.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hughes, James.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Norton, William.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Brennan, Martin.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colley, Harry.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Furlong, Walter.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Connor, John S.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
- Walsh, Richard.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies P. S. Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.
Question declared negatived.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.55 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 29th January.