Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 6 Mar 1953

Vol. 136 No. 16

Private Deputies' Business. - Rise in Cost of Living—Motion.

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in the exercise of his functions as head of the Department of Industry and Commerce, has failed to take effective action to prevent the cost of living rising to its present high level, and requests the Government to take immediate steps to deal with the matter in the public interest.—(Deputy A. Byrne.)

Mr. O'Higgins

When the House rose the other night, we were discussing this important motion with regard to the cost of living. I think it is opportune at a time like this to see the record of the present Government, in relation to prices and price control generally, against the promises they made when they sought office. I do not think there is now in this House any Deputy who can deny the fact that the problem of prices is one of the gravest problems which face the people of the country. So fantastic is the situation that we now find that the real value of the £1 note is something less than 9/- compared with its pre-war value. That unfortunate situation is largely due to the ineffective steps taken by the present Administration in relation to price control for the last 18 months.

One could understand some fall or decrease in the value of money due to circumstances outside the fiscal control of this country and due to major financial problems. One could condonethis situation in such circumstances, but what concerns the people is that in the last 18 months, not by any act of omission but by positive Government action, by positive Government policy, prices have been substantially increased. That is why I say it is important that we should avail of this opportunity to put this Government's record against the background of the propaganda, the policies and the promises they used to get where they now are.

I had in mind in particular the debate initiated in this House in the autumn of 1950 by the present Minister for Industry and Commerce. I think it is well that people should remember that particular debate because it supplies the touchstone for what I describe as the fraudulent policy of the present Government in relation to price control. In the autumn of 1950 this country, in common with every other country in Western Europe, was beginning to be affected by the ripples set off by rearmament and the Korean war. There is no doubt that in the autumn of 1950 an incipient rise in prices, caused by international rearmament, was beginning to be felt in this country. It was not a serious situation. It did not call for panic; it did not call for sensational action. It was a factor that had to be considered by a responsible Government, considered calmly and carefully, but the existence of that particular factor, that slight incipient rise in prices that occurred in August, 1950, and continued up to Christmas of that year, was used deliberately by the Fianna Fáil Party, each and every one of them, to endeavour to charge the inter-Party Government with an ineffective price control and with having no policy in relation to stabilising living costs. Indeed, when the present Tánaiste started the hullabaloo others were ready to follow his lead.

I recollect that when the Autumn Session of Dáil Éireann commenced in October of 1950 a motion of no confidence in the inter-Party Government was tabled by Deputy Cowan because, he charged, the inter-Party Government had failed effectively tocontrol prices. He made that charge following the lead of the present Minister, following the hullabaloo of the Fianna Fáil Party, and following the specious nonsense that had been uttered by Deputies such as Deputy Major de Valera and other Fianna Fáil Deputies.

What was the situation then? For two and a half years, from February, 1948, until the late autumn of 1950, the policy of the inter-Party Government and the action of Ministers like the present Deputy Morrissey had effectively stabilised the prices in this country. There is no one who can now have any doubt about that fact. From February, 1948, to the late autumn of 1950 a pretty sound stabilised price level was maintained here. Agitations with regard to certain commodities had been sponsored, but were fought by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce. In the spring of each year, butchers had consistently demanded an increase in the price of meat. That demand was resisted by the Government, and meat was still available at controlled prices to our people.

With regard to a variety of other commodities, a case had been made to the Government by those engaged in their production for increases in prices. Nevertheless, following a cohesive, sound, clear policy, the inter-Party Government were able to maintain stabilisation of prices. That meant for our people and for workers who had got during that period two increases in pay a substantial increase in living standards and an assurance that their pay packet, once it went into their pockets, would not be depreciated in value by rising prices.

It was with that background that in the autumn of 1950 we had this famous debate on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Supplies and Services Bill. The present Minister had this to say at column 1291, Volume 123, of the Official Report:—

"As this Supplies and Services Act is the main legal foundation for the ineffective efforts at price control that the Government is making, it was to have been expected thatthe Parliamentary Secretary would devote his remarks almost entirely to the problems of price control and not to other Government activities which are carried on under the authority of this Act."

He goes on elsewhere to refer in detail and in his own decisive manner to what he repeatedly described as the ineffective efforts of the inter-Party Government to control prices. I have no doubt that this particular charge was made knowing it to be groundless. I have no doubt that the then Deputy Lemass in charging the inter-Party Government with ineffective price control knew well that whatever increases in price had taken place were due entirely to international rearmament and circumstances outside the control of the Government. But why did he then, with his tongue in his cheek, seek to make these charges at that time except that he wanted to fish in troubled waters not caring what he caught or the bait he used?

It is only right that now, some two and a half years later, we on this side of the House should arraign him and every member of his Party and charge them to render an account of their efforts since they have been there to control prices. In the last 18 months what has happened to the Prices Section of the Department of Industry and Commerce? In the last 18 months what single step has been taken by the present Government to control the price of any commodity?

Meat has been decontrolled and the announcement of the decontrol of meat was appended to a pious aspiration by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that the decontrol of meat would mean a reduction in the price to the consumer. Does the Minister now think that that pious hope has been justified? Is he not aware that the decontrol of meat has meant that less meat can be purchased by poorer people because the price has substantially increased? The present Minister also decontrolled bacon and again the people were assured that the decontrol of bacon would mean a substantial fall in prices. In fact, thedecontrol of bacon was followed by two extraordinary occurrences—an increase in the price the consumer had to pay for bacon and a reduction in the price the farmer got for pigs.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce decontrolled fish. Again, we were told that the decontrol of fish would mean that one's Friday and Lenten repast would cost less. Again, the result has been quite a considerable increases in the price the people have to pay for fish and the virtual disappearance from fish shops of the more popular kinds of fish. I could go on, as the Minister himself did in the autumn of 1950, and refer to commodity after commodity that has in the last 18 months, under the administration of the present Government, substantially increased in price. I do not think it is useful or beneficial to the people to continue reciting this long list of wrongs.

I am satisfied, as the people outside certainly are satisfied, that in relation to the propaganda with regard to prices each and every member of the present Fianna Fáil Party is equally guilty of a fraudulent political hoax played on the people of this country and that charge, of course, would also apply to at least one of the Independent Deputies who helped to put the present Government where it is. Whatever may have happened in the past, whatever injurious propaganda may have been used, whatever false promises may have been made and whatever omissions may have occurred, the time has now come when we are entitled to expect from the Government and from the Minister a lead with regard to prices.

I heard the Minister in this House in recent months in effect saying with regard to prices: "We must conserve our resources. We must struggle on and we must hope for the best." That is, in my opinion, not good enough. It is not good enough to expect an Irish Minister for Industry and Commerce to hope that import prices in coming months may drop and that if they do drop subject to the supply situation here the reduction in price may be carried over to the consumer. That kind of thumb twirling and waitingaround hoping for the best is not good enough in the present situation.

We are now living in a country that is bearing an awful burden of taxation pressing down on every section and each class. That burden of taxation has to be considered also in conjunction with the burden of rising prices. We have Government Ministers parading around as a policy an assurance that no one in this country, civil servants and other large sections, can expect any increase in pay or salary. There is now looming out of the background the shadows of a new standstill in relation to wages and incomes. That is a matter we may discuss on another occasion but whatever the Government's policy is with regard to wages, salaries and incomes surely it must be coupled with an effective effort to stabilise prices?

There can be no sense in the complacent outlook of the present Government when real values of money are dropping substantially each week. There can be no sense in a Government outlook that permits workers' wages to be halved before even the unfortunate worker has the opportunity of spending his pay packet. It is in that situation that now, after 18 months or almost two years of the present Government, the people make the demand that if they are going to stay there and want to stay there or keep the present set up and the present Dáil in existence, at least they must come together and produce a policy. If they do not want to produce a policy, let them take the other step, dissolve the Dáil and get out— because we on this side have a policy, a policy that was in operation for three and a half years, that effectively stabilised prices, that effectively guaranteed to workers and all persons dependent on salaries a pretty uniform real money value. We have a policy now. It can go into operation and have a fair opportunity of being effective. We at least make the demand that if the Government want to stay there they must produce something.

I cannot for the life of me see what the Government's policy is regardingprices. No evidence has been given since they came into office that they are concerned with anything but shelving responsibility, decontrolling commodity after commodity, letting prices be fixed by someone else and generally letting matters drift. As a result, we have had in the last 18 months, unfortunately, a very vicious competition between different producers, between different sections, which in their turn have been faced by rising costs, due to faulty control by the Government and who legitimately must make a demand from the Government for a rise in the price of commodities on account of those rising costs. That vicious circle has been continuing and the consumer has been paying all the time.

I do not suggest for one moment that even the major portion of the increases that have taken place is the direct responsibility of Government policy. I do not make the kind of case that the Minister himself made in the debate I referred to, in the autumn of 1950. Sufficient for the charge I make is this, that much of the price increases that have occurred is due to direct positive action by the present Government and that that action has taken place at a time when there has been no policy, disclosed anyway, to control or deal with prices.

Accordingly, I welcome the opportunity given by this debate to discuss this serious problem and to assure the Minister, If assurance is required, that this problem is now as real as ever it was in the worst years of the emergency, that people are being driven to desperation by rising prices and that the harassed housewife who appeared in Fianna Fáil advertisements in the last election with grey hair now has white hair and that the situation is far more serious than it was at any time in the past. That is due not merely to the problem itself but also to the fact that the people can see no redress coming from the Government, no policy being made available except assurances such as we have had from the Minister in the past: "Hold on, hold tight; there will be something turning up around the corner." I hope that, as a result of this debate, we willget a statement of policy that will give the people some assurance that in coming months some efforts will be made to deal with this problem.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

When Deputy Alfred Byrne moved his motion, he had the frankness, or the astuteness, to say that while he deplored the increase in prices he did not know what could be done about it and that he had no proposals to make regarding it. As a feat of oratory, Deputy O'Higgins's effort was far more pretentious than Deputy Alfred Byrne's, but it disclosed that he had not got either the frankness or the astuteness which Deputy Byrne displayed. He attempted to suggest that there was something which the Govern-could do now which would bring down prices, although he did not say what it was, and that he or his Party had a policy which could be applied and would have that effect, although he did not reveal it.

He has described the Government's attitude to prices as fraudulent. Whatever adjective the Deputy might have used in relation to that policy, that is the one which is least appropriate. Our attitude towards this problem of prices might have been described as impolitically frank or crudely honest, but certainly it could not be described as fraudulent. We never at any time attempted to conceal facts from the people or induce them to believe that there was any process capable of being applied by the Government which, at a time when material costs and wages were increasing, would enable prices to be brought down.

There is one thing I will undertake to the Dáil and to the public, that in my administration of the functions of the Department of Industry and Commerce in relation to price control I will not engage in pretence or fraud of any kind. I will be more specific. in that I will give a precise indication of the type of thing I will not do. Deputy O'Higgins was indiscreet in referring to meat, because the illustration I am going to give relates to meat.

Mr. O'Higgins

Is the Ministergoing to tell the same falsehood again?

Mr. Lemass

I will tell the facts as I know them. In the spring of 1950 the Prices Advisory Body investigated the prices permitted to be charged for meat by butchers in Dublin. At that time the price of meat was subject to control by official regulation. The price of cattle had risen in the market and the butchers claimed that in consequence they should be allowed an increased retail price for meat. The Prices Advisory Body recommended that they were entitled to the increase and made their report to the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Dr. O'Higgins, a report which proposed that he should make an amended Order permitting increased prices for meat. The then Minister, Deputy Dr. O'Higgins, brought into his office the representatives of the butchers' organisations. He told them he had got this report from the Prices Advisory Body, he told them that he recognised that they were entitled to be allowed to charge increased prices for meat. He told them, however, that it was politically inconvenient for him to make an Order sanctioning higher prices and therefore he was not going to make the Order, but that they could charge whatever prices they thought proper; and he gave them an undertaking that inspectors of the Department would be instructed not to interfere with them and that no prosecution would follow.

Mr. Rooney

There is no evidence of that.

Mr. O'Higgins

The Minister made that charge once before. It is noticeable he made it in the absence of the Deputy referred to and he is making it again now in his absence. It is completely unfounded.

Mr. Lemass

I am not responsible for the Deputy's absence.

Mr. Rooney

It is only a yarn.

Mr. Lemass

If the accuracy of my statement is challenged, I can produce ample evidence in support of it.

Mr. O'Higgins

It was challenged before.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister should be allowed to speak without interruption, as was the last Deputy who spoke.

Mr. Lemass

This matter of price control is of considerable importance in its relationship to the general level of economic activity. It is quite easy for a Government to decide that under no circumstances will they sanction an increase in price for anything. They can maintain that decision and even enforce it, and if trade costs are rising —either the cost of materials or the labour cost of production—then the effect of maintaining and enforcing an unrealistic price by Government Order is to kill production and to reduce employment. Any system of intelligent price control must be designed solely to ensure that there is no unnecessary element in the price, that the price is fairly related to the costs and is kept related to the costs so that the public are protected against exploitation but trade allowed to proceed at the same time.

The Deputy said that prices began to rise in 1950 following the outbreak of the Korean war which started an inflationary movement over the whole world. That is correct. He said also that I then criticised in a debate here the ineffective measures of price control in operation. Why does he now query the accuracy of that criticism of mine, because, within a few weeks, the then Government admitted the ineffectiveness of the price control arrangements in operation? The Deputy said that the rise in prices caused no panic. It appeared to us that it caused very considerable panic in the Coalition Government because, before the end of that debate, as the Deputy may remember, a Minister who had no public responsibility for price control, the Minister for Social Welfare, came to the Dáil and announced what looked like panic measures to deal with the situation, measures which included the establishment of the Prices Advisory Body.

The origin of that body is shrouded in mystery, so far as I am aware.There is nothing in the records of the Department to suggest that the Minister for Industry and Commerce or any of his officials knew of the intention to set it up, or of the intention to enact the standstill prices Order which coincided with its establishment before the announcements were made in the Dáil. Nevertheless, the Prices Advisory Body was set up and that body has functioned ever since. I want the Deputy to remember, and the House to know, that the same Prices Advisory Body, with its membership virtually unchanged, is still functioning and still exercising the powers given to it under the Order which created it.

Mr. O'Higgins

It is the only good thing.

Mr. Lemass

No Order was made by me decontrolling the price of any commodity or increasing any price except on the recommendation of that body or where the increase in price was the direct consequence of a Government decision, such as the announcement in relation to butter of last week. Every other Order made by me sanctioning such an increase was made upon the recommendation of that body.

The Deputy referred to the Order I made decontrolling the price of fish. He should know that the desirability of decontrolling the prices of fish was investigated at a public inquiry held by the Prices Advisory Body, and the Order I made was on its recommendation, following its examination of all the information obtained at that public inquiry.

Mr. O'Higgins

The Minister misunderstands my criticism in that regard. That was followed by an announcement from the Minister's Department that the result would be a reduction in price.

Mr. Lemass

It was followed by an announcement of the view expressed to me by the Prices Advisory Body. Their advice was that, as in Great Britain, where a similar course had been followed a short time previously, there was likely to be some dislocation of the trade for a period, but that, in a short time, the trade would settledown into the new conditions and that the result would be not merely a reduction in the price of some classes of fish but a very considerable improvement in the supply. May I say that an investigation which I caused to be made by officers of my Department in the past month confirmed that conditions in the trade had developed as the Prices Advisory Body had forecast?

The cost of living has not risen merely in this country. If we are to have any intelligent debate here upon practical means of keeping prices down, we must at least advert to the fact that whatever is causing them to rise is operating throughout the world. In fact, the cost of living has increased in this country by less than in most other countries. The country with which it is easiest for us to make comparisons is Great Britain, and, since the upward movement in prices began in 1950, the cost of living has risen less here than in Great Britain, so far as is shown by the official cost-of-living index numbers of both countries.

There is another fact which is interesting. Deputy O'Higgins suggested that there was some movement by the Government to restrict wage increases. There has been no such movement. The fact which I want him to know, however, is that, although the cost of living, as shown by the British index number, rose by a higher percentage in Britain than here, wage rates rose by a greater percentage in this country.

Mr. O'Higgins

But we had a standstill Order.

Mr. Lemass

I am referring to the past three years when there was no standstill Order, and the fact is that wages rose by a higher percentage here than in Great Britain, so that, relative to the cost of living over the past three years, workers as a whole, workers in employment earning standard wages, were less adversely affected here than in Britain by that position.

Mr. O'Leary

That is not right.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Derrig)

It is absolutely right.

Mr. Lemass

I am only giving the facts as I know them.

Mr. O'Leary

The housewives will tell you about it.

Mr. Lemass

I am not denying that the cost of living has risen here. Nobody is seeking to misrepresent the facts in that regard. I am saying that whatever caused prices to rise here caused them to rise also in Great Britain and caused them to rise more, and that because of the circumstances prevailing in the two countries, workers here were better able to protect themselves against that rise than in Britain.

Mr. O'Leary

Do you think the agricultural workers are able to protect themselves?

Mr. Lemass

I propose to refer to them in a moment because I am anxious to get the position of the Dáil in relation to them clear. The only positive measure the Government could take that would bring prices down is to subsidise them. We are opposed to subsidies in principle. May I say that my experience as a Minister over 20 years is that the introduction of subsidy into any trade leads to inefficiency and higher costs, that, in the long run, the public pay more through taxation and prices than they would have to pay if the element of subsidy had never appeared, and that our aim should be to get back to a situation when, in every trade and in relation to every commodity, State subsidies will disappear?

If we were to try to bring back into operation this year, however, the price subsidies which were terminated in last year's Budget, it would mean that we would have to face this year an additional £10,000,000 in taxation. It is foolish for people to talk about reintroducing subsidies without facing up to the practical difficulty of doing it. In my belief, it would not be possible to raise an additional £10,000,000 in taxation from the Irish people, that you could not devise a system of taxes which would bring in that amount. In any event, is there any reason to think that the people will be better off byhaving some prices reduced by subsidies, if other prices are increased at the same time by higher taxes? There is no sense in it, because, in the process of paying out subsidies and collecting taxes, higher administrative expense will arise and clearly the people will get back in benefits through subsidies less than they pay in taxes to make the subsidies possible.

Mr. O'Higgins

It is an extraordinary thing that Point 15 crept into your programme. You promised to maintain subsidies.

Mr. Lemass

So we are. The Book of Estimates circulated to-day shows under the Vote for Industry and Commerce a provision for food subsidies in excess of the total cost of these subsidies in the year 1947 when the then Fianna Fáil Government introduced them.

It is true that food prices have risen. The agricultural index number published in this country shows that, for the past three years, there has been a steady rise in agricultural prices. That rise was accentuated last week by the Government's decision to increase the price of butter so that farmers supplying milk to creameries would get a higher price for that milk.

Mr. Rooney

Next week.

Mr. Lemass

They are getting it now. There has been some misunderstanding and a little misrepresentation in regard to the cost of butter. I do not know if any Deputy in this Dáil thinks the farmers are getting too much for anything. It is an arguable point of view but no Deputy in this Dáil has ever argued that the farmers are getting too much for their produce. Does any Deputy in this House think that the milk producers should not have got the increase in the price of milk which they are now obtaining as a result of the increase in the retail price of butter? There is no sense in denouncing the Government for sanctioning that increase and at the same time arguing in favour of increased prices for milk to milk producers. You cannot possibly do that without increasing the price of butter. The margins allowed for themanufacture of butter by creameries or for the retail distribution of butter are very small—perhaps they are even too small. Certainly, there is nothing in these margins which would permit of a higher price for milk to the producers without a corresponding increase in the price of butter. If, therefore, anybody argues that the price of butter should not be increased he is arguing that the price paid to milk producers for their milk should not be increased. He is arguing that the milk producers should not be allowed to pay the higher wages to their workers which have been sanctioned by the Agricultural Wages Board this year. Deputy O'Leary referred to these wages. They have been increased in each of the last three years and this year the minimum rate which is enforceable by law has been raised so that the farmer has no option but to pay it. Therefore, any Deputy is arguing against that increased wage to agricultural workers——

Mr. Rooney

Does that refer to imported butter?

Mr. Lemass

No. I am referring to Irish creamery butter. The only way by which that higher wage can be paid to farm workers and a higher price paid to creamery milk suppliers for their milk is to sanction a higher retail price for butter. The only thing the Government controls in the whole industry is the retail price of butter and that is the only way we could allow the farmers to get the higher price for their milk and the workers to get the increased wage.

Captain Giles

Could you not deal with the middlemen?

Mr. Lemass

Personally, I am satisfied that there is nothing in the margin allowed either for the manufacture of milk into butter or for the distribution of butter by retail shops which could meet that situation. These margins have been pared so low that it is far more likely that they will be the subject of protest by those receiving them than that any opportunity will arise for considering their reduction.

It is true that when the Governmentdecided to sanction the increase in the price of butter from the 1st March it recognised that the higher price would have to apply not merely to imported New Zealand butter, but also to Irish creamery butter in cold store. An attempt is made to suggest that, in some way, an increase in the price of that butter in store is benefiting the Exchequer. The Exchequer does not benefit one halfpenny as a result of that transaction. The full amount of any profit made upon the sale of New Zealand butter and the full amount of any higher margin secured on the Irish butter in cold store is paid into what is called the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund. The purpose of that fund, as its name implies, is to stabilise the price of butter. Every Deputy here knows that, before the war, it was normal for the price of butter to be much lower in the summer than in the winter. The price of butter fluctuated with the seasons. It reached its lowest point about July or August, and it reached its highest point about January or February. Because of the regulations which were in force during the war years, the public have now become accustomed to a situation in which the price of butter remains uniform throughout the whole year.

Mr. O'Leary

A lot of poor people are eating margarine now because they cannot pay for butter.

Mr. Lemass

The uniformity of price is secured through the operation of the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund. As a result of the adjustment in price from 1st March, there will now accumulate in that fund something less than £200,000 which will be paid over to cover the cost of cold storing butter for next winter. It will thereby ensure that the price of butter will not have to be increased next winter. That fund keeps the price uniform during the whole year. There is no benefit to the Exchequer. If the actual cost for cold storing butter for next winter's consumption proves to be less than the amount in the fund, the balance will be accumulateduntil next year to serve the same purpose in 1954.

Mr. O'Leary

If the farmers do not have another strike.

Mr. Lemass

In view of some misstatements which have appeared in the Press, I think it is desirable that that position should clearly be understood. If the price of butter had not been increased on the 1st March—if the increase had been postponed to the 1st May—then, of course, the cost of cold storing next winter's butter would have to be recovered from the creameries and the increase in milk prices which the producers are getting would have been fractionally less.

I want to express considerable doubt as to whether the maintenance of price control by the Government in relation to a number of commodities is keeping these prices up or down. I have frequently referred before to that doubt in my mind. There is a possibility that, in respect of some commodities, the fixing of a maximum price by the Government gives, by implication, approval to a price which might not be secured if normal trade competition alone determined it. It is a fact that bread and flour are being sold by a number of firms and in many parts of the country at less than the maximum prices fixed by Order.

Naturally, when that fact was reported to me I had a re-examination made of the information upon which the Order was based, and I have up to the present been unable to find any good grounds for altering the maximum prices fixed. But, apparently, some bakeries, by various methods, can produce and sell bread cheaper than others. There is at least one bakery in Dublin which can do so. If price control was removed, it is possible that that one bakery would reduce its prices, but it is clear to me from the information available to me that other bakeries could not follow suit without working at a loss. Now, what would the result of that situation be? It would mean that trade would become concentrated in a smaller number of firms and that other firms would go out of business. That mightbe a good result, but it is a result that we should recognise may arise if we were to adopt a course of decontrolling and fixing a price which was reasonable in relation to the costs of a single bakery, but unreasonably low in relation to the costs of others.

The fact is that, in operating price control, the Orders have to be based on average costs, and average costs are what the term implies—not the actual costs of any concern, but the average for all concerns. The average may be higher than the actual costs in some businesses and lower than the actual costs in others, and if price control is abolished it is reasonable to assume that those firms whose costs are lower than the average will take advantage of that position to attract more business by reducing prices, and other firms will be forced to follow suit either by operating at a loss or by adjusting their manufacturing processes to enable them to carry on.

I recognise, as well as any Deputy here, the political problems involved in this. It is far better for a Government to come in here with an announcement that it is going to control all prices, that it is going to establish a special body under a judge of the Supreme Court to investigate all applications for price increases than to propose that the Government should disappear out of the picture altogether, that price control of an emergency kind should cease, and that normal competitive factors alone should be allowed to operate. Yet, I am certain that, notwithstanding the political difficulty of following that course, if it were followed, after an initial period of possible dislocation and upset, the general level of prices would be lower than that which appears to be sanctioned by the maximum price Orders made on Government authority.

Deputy O'Higgins said that he did not suggest that the major part of the increase in prices which took place in the past couple of years was the direct result of Government policy. Some part of it was. We do not deny that. When the Budget problem of 1952 was under consideration by the Governmentwe decided, as a matter of policy, that it was better, in the interests of the people, that the gap between revenue and expenditure should be in part closed by the withdrawal of the food subsidies than by imposing higher taxes on other commodities. We did that, recognising that it would also be necessary to make consequential changes in social welfare services which would increase the cost. Let me remind the Dáil that, simultaneously with the withdrawal of these subsidies, children's allowances, widows' and orphans' pensions, blind pensions, old age pensions, unemployment assistance payments and unemployment insurance payments were all increased, and increased by an amount which was adequate to compensate the recipients for the effect of the withdrawal of the food subsidies.

Mr. O'Leary

1/6 for the old age pensioners.

Mr. Lemass

If there is to be any suggestion that these food subsidies should be reintroduced, and that the Government should take the responsibility of raising, by higher taxes, an additional £10,000,000 to restore them, is it also intended that these additional benefits should be withdrawn? I doubt if any Deputy will in fact propose that, and that is another reason why we should face this position realistically. There is a problem there, the problem of rising prices, a problem which, as Deputy O'Higgins has admitted, cannot, in its major part, be affected by any action of the Government except such action involves the provision of direct subsidies which is impracticable in present circumstances and is undesirable in any circumstances.

What then is the future prospect? We know that the factor which set off this increase in prices was the international rise in the cost of materials which followed the outbreak of the Korean war. That rise in import prices continued unabated until about August, 1951. Then the rise tapered off. Since then the general tendency in international prices has been downward, and our import price index so reveals. The full effect of the rise in the cost of imported materials did not reappear inour retail prices until 1952, and by then, because of the rise in the cost of living which had begun with the outbreak of the Korean war and continued right through 1950 and 1951, wage rates were being increased also.

Now, the position, as I see it, is that the effect of the lower prices of imported materials is being nullified by the increasing labour costs and other internal costs in the meantime, but this process of wage adjustments to meet the higher cost of living is now coming to an end. Most trades have already carried through their adjustments, and it is reasonable to assume that, by the spring or summer of this year, the general process of adjustment will have been completed. If, therefore, the present trend in the cost of imported materials continues, we can hope, with some confidence, that by then a position of price stability will have been achieved. That is the desirable position. It is far more important, in relation to their effect on economic and social conditions, that prices should remain stable than that they should fall.

I want again to ask Deputies to remember that there never was a time in the world's history in any country in which the general price movement was persistently downward that there was not at the same time pronounced unemployment and a trade slump. It is when prices are rising that trade is good, and when prices are falling that trade is bad. When prices are rising, people are disposed to buy in advance, to accumulate stocks, and get whatever profit increasing price may bring to them. When prices are falling people are always disposed to put off buying in the hope of getting better value later. Traders, wholesalers and manufacturers tend to keep stocks to the minimum for fear they may be involved in loss. From many points of view the social consequences of a downward movement in prices are more severe than the consequences of an upward movement. The ideal situation is one in which prices remain stable, where people can reckon with confidence for a reasonable period ahead that money will retain its value. That is something which cannot be done by Governmentaction alone. It can be done only by the combined efforts of all sections of the community, working to get the same result. If we all decide that we are not going to incur higher expenditure on new Government services that may mean higher taxes, if we are to try to keep the tax structure more or less unchanged, if we are to try to keep the price structure uniform, then we all must agree—farmers, workers, manufacturers, and traders— that stability is the desirable end and that we will work together to secure it. If any one section decides to break the line, then the line cannot be maintained because the competitive race to get sectional advantage will be resumed.

Deputy O'Higgins said that the £1 has been devalued, that it is now worth 9/- as compared with pre-war and some larger number of shillings as compared with an intermediate date. That is true. But Deputies opposite must not forget that they took a decision to devalue the £1 in 1949.

Mr. Cosgrave

That has nothing whatever to do with it.

Mr. Lemass

Surely it has something to do with the increase in prices.

Mr. Cosgrave

You do not even believe that yourself.

Mr. Lemass

How can you devalue the £1 in relation to the dollar without having to pay more pounds for the goods you must import from the dollar areas?

Mr. Cosgrave

You do not even believe that yourself.

Mr. Lemass

Is not that the purpose of an artificial devaluation of the currency of that kind?

Mr. Rooney

It is the same for two years.

Mr. Lemass

The effect is to reduce the incomes of the people by making the money they have buy less. I am not criticising the decision to devalue the £1. I think that, in the circumstances of 1949, following the decision of the British Government, there was little option open to the Governmenthere but to take that step but it was thoroughly dishonest for the then Minister for Finance to do down to Radio Éireann and broadcast an announcement that the devaluation of the £1 would not cause prices to rise. Of course, it was bound to cause prices to rise and did cause prices to rise. It started this process of adjustment which was accelerated by the post-Korean inflation, which has continued ever since and is only now coming to an end. It is equally true to say that, if there was revaluation of the £1, prices would fall. Whether that would be to our advantage or not is another question.

Mr. O'Leary

The £1 is very little good to anybody now.

Mr. Lemass

It is worth something. I will give you 19/- for one any day.

Mr. O'Leary

You will get very little change after buying two gallons of petrol or two lbs. of butter.

Mr. Lemass

Nobody is denying that the cost of living has gone up, that prices have risen. What has happened is, in my view, permanent. We are not going to get back again to pre-war prices. There never was a world war where the price level after the war was not permanently higher than it was before the war. Saying that the £1 now is worth 9/-, as compared with 1939, is just as sensible as saying that the £1 to-day will buy as much as 1/- would buy 100 years ago. All economic progress requires a steady inflationary trend. It is only when the inflationary trend gets out of hand that economic and social difficulties result. The whole history of the world has shown that money tends gradually to lose its buying value, and, in my view, whenever in the history of the world that trend was reversed, as in the major slump that we had ten years after the last war, there was a period when things went bad. We do not look back on the 1929-31 period with any desire to see it restored here.

Mr. O'Leary

Things are looking bad here too.

Mr. Lemass

My expectation is that,as a result of the present movement in international prices and the completion of the process of adjusting internal wages and other costs to the higher level of prices, a position of stability is in sight. I am not claiming that that position will be brought about by any action of the Government. It will be the product of economic forces which the Government can only influence in a very slight degree.

We are maintaining the Prices Advisory Body in operation. It investigates every application for either an increase in prices or the decontrol of prices. There are few applications coming before it now. Its work also appears to me to be coming to an end. We are reaching a situation where it will be possible for the Government to relinquish its emergency powers, to get back to the measures of price control which were deemed adequate in pre-war conditions, measures which will have less relationship to emergency problems than to the long-term problems of a protected economy.

I am putting forward that view as a forecast based upon my reading of the facts, not as an attempt to indicate a position which the Government has decided to reach because the Governments decisions in this matter will be far less influential in producing that situation than the general attitude of the community as a whole.

Mr. Dunne

The Tánaiste has given us a highly technical address on the problems which surround the subject matter of Deputy Alfred Byrne's motion. It is regrettable that in the whole course of his speech we find no ray of hope whatsoever held out to the people, no definite assurance that they will be eased of the burdens which have fallen upon their shoulders in the shape of the high cost of living. There was, rather, the customary prophecy of the Fianna Fáil Party of gloom, doom, and still further gloom and doom.

I have noticed, and I am sure everybody has noticed, that when questions relating to the cost of living come to be discussed at chambers of commerce, at meetings of employers'organisations throughout the country and in places where one would expect a more enlightened view of the problems surrounding the high cost of living, there has been a definite campaign to place the responsibility for the high cost of living upon the workers and principally upon the trade unions. A common fallacy which has even found credence amongst a small section of workers is that if the trade union movement did not seek to improve wages there would be some chance of stabilisation of prices. That idea has been propagated very extensively through the country.

Mr. Cunningham

That is not so.

Mr. Dunne

It is so. One comes up against it every day of the week. It has been hinted at on occasion by the Tánaiste in speeches here as Minister and previously, as a Deputy in opposition. It has been hinted at and has been stated by Deputies belonging to other Parties in the House. There has been a very definite campaign to try to convince ordinary people that if it were not for the demands for increased wages or the increased wages secured our problem in relation to the high cost of living would be solved. It is, of course, completely dishonest to try to instil that into the minds of the people and it does not serve the purpose of those who have real control over the destinies of the country, those who are in control of industry and business.

How little do we hear in this House of the profit element in relation to prices? We hear of labour costs, the costs of raw material, the effects of wars, and a great deal of technical jargon which it is difficult for any but those who have made a thorough study of economics to follow. How little do we hear of the effect which profits have on prices? In common with the rest of my Party, and I believe in common with a lot of people in other Parties also, I believe that a great deal of the responsibility for high prices and the high cost of living, as we know it, must be laid on the shoulders of those who are in a position to put on the market of this country and indeed the markets of other countries throughout theworld, goods which must be bought by the people if the people are to live. because these individuals, whether they are industrialists, financiers or businessmen, to a great extent, at any rate. have a free hand in relation to profits.

I do not think there has ever been in the history of our native Governments any determined attempt made to control or bring within reasonable bounds the activities and the desires of the profit-makers in industry and in business generally.

The Minister has admitted that there have been increases in the cost of living which resulted directly from Government action. These increases are the ones which press most seriously on the people. If you take the period between February, 1951, shortly before the general election, and the middle of 1952, looking at the index figure, taking into account the reflection in the index figure of the reduction in the food subsidies, assessing roughly the increases in the Budget in relation to beer and tobacco and the prices of other commodities not affected by the Budget in that period but which were increased nevertheless by reason of other forces and influences, I think it is correct to say that the cost of living over that period increased by approximately 25 per cent.

As a result of a parliamentary question to the Taoiseach in June or July, it can be deduced that the purchasing power of wages during that period in the City and County of Dublin as compared with 1939 was 93 per cent. of what it had been in 1939, showing a very considerable reduction in the standard of living of the workers in the Dublin area. If we cast our minds back to 1939, it cannot be argued that the standard of living of the people, particularly of the workers in the rural and urban areas, was by any means satisfactory. Yet, statistically at least, it can be shown that that standard of living has been substantially reduced inasmuch as the purchasing power of wages has been reduced.

The present Government came into office because they claimed that they could give the people a more prosperous existence than they enjoyedduring the three years of the inter-Party Government régime. Will the Tánaiste or any member of the Fianna Fáil Party argue that the past two years of Fianna Fáil administration have compared in prosperity with those three years? I think it is beyond question and accepted even by the most convinced members of the Fianna Fáil Party that the economic history of the country since the advent of the Fianna Fáil Government has been one of disaster. Whatever excuse may be offered by the Tánaiste or the Government for that development, the fact is that the Government sought and achieved power on the promise that they would bring about for the people a better condition of affairs than previously existed, but the result has been quite the opposite.

We have the dual evils of the ever-increasing cost of living and unemployment increasing by approximately 1,000 per week. The Tánaiste stated that these were problems for which there does not seem to be any easy solution. I do not think it will be denied that the Prices Advisory Body, which was the subject of criticism and attack by the Fianna Fáil Party when it was established by the previous Administration, has performed a very useful function. But of course it did not and it does not represent the final step that can or should be taken in so far as the control of prices is concerned. It represented the first step, and I think it was a fairly good beginning, because it has established the principle that the people have the right to know what way businesses are run and what margin of profit is being enjoyed by the producers of goods essential to the life of the nation.

The establishment of the Prices Advisory Body was met by many industrialists with cries of outrage because they apparently thought that, no matter what they were producing, and no matter how essential that production was to the life of the nation, they had some prescriptive right to the production of those goods and some divine right to conceal their profits while making what profits they liked atthe expense of the people. To some extent at least, and without infringing rights, because nobody wants to infringe the rights of individuals, the Prices Advisory Body was a step in the right direction so far as that reactionary mentality is concerned.

I am principally concerned with the fact that last year the Government imposed on the people and on the working classes in Dublin City and County in particular a burden which they have been unable to bear by reducing food subsidies and by increasing taxation at the same time upon the minor luxuries of drink and tobacco. The Government thereby definitely imposed a hardship on the people to which the people have been unable to acclimatise themselves.

As recently as last week we were startled by the news that butter would be increased in price by 5d. or 4d. per lb., to a maximum of 4/2. I believe the Government has made no serious effort to restrain those who are making demands upon the people in seeking increased prices for the goods they produce. Neither has it made any serious effort to restrain itself. Has the Government given any thought whatsoever to the difficulties that beset a householder in Ballyfermot for instance? Has the Government considered the position of the casual worker employed in the building industry? During a full week such a worker may earn £6 14s. We all know that building is practically at a standstill now. That casual worker may, and probably has, a family of the order of five or six children. Under the renting system adopted by the Dublin Corporation such a householder will pay not less than £1 per week in rent. That leaves him with something over £5 to provide for his family. How, in the name of Providence, can such a worker be expected to do that?

How can the Government justify increasing the price of butter to 4/2 per lb. when there are thousands of workers in the City of Dublin living at that level, not to speak of all the thousands who are living below that level and who are dependent upon unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance? Such action on the part of the Government betrays a completelack of appreciation of the sufferings of our people. I do not hope for any spectacular results from this motion, but it does provide us with an opportunity at any rate of stating our views so far as the cost of living is concerned. The leopard does not change his spots and Fianna Fáil will not change its attitude towards the people or its policy simply because we raise our voices here. Perhaps the Minister would tell us now—this is something my constituents would like to know— if it is proposed to place still further imposts on the people in the forthcoming Budget.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot discuss the forthcoming Budget on this motion.

Mr. Dunne

I do not propose to do so, but it is rumoured that we are in for still more taxation. If that is so, then the sooner the people know about it the better. If that is so the only solution is for the Government to do what it has been asked and challenged to do; that is to test the feelings of the people in this matter. The people have lost confidence in the Government. Were they given an opportunity I am convinced they would vote for a change of administration. It is not right for a Government which has lost the confidence of the people to hold on in the fashion in which the present Government is holding on. I register a very emphatic protest against the action of the Government in increasing the price of butter. That was done without any consultation of any kind with the representatives of those who have to foot the bill.

Mr. Cosgrave

Having listened to the Minister's speech, I think it is a fair description of it to say that the net result of it is that the whole position is hopeless, that prices are rising due to a variety of causes for which the Minister adduced a number of arguments, but that the Government and the Department of Industry and Commerce can do nothing about it. The Minister, in opening, referred to the fact that the remarks of Deputy O'Higgins in describing the Government'spolicy as fraudulent or dishonest were inappropriately applied; he claimed that, whatever else might be said of the Government's policy, it was honest. He used the phrase that "it might be described as impolitically frank or crudely honest".

The Minister, however, omitted to explain to the House and to the country the causes for the departure from the published policy of the Fianna Fáil Party as announced after the General Election of May, 1951. After that general election, when Fianna Fáil had failed to secure a majority of the elected Deputies and when they were seeking to convince some Deputies who at that time described themselves as "independent", they published a 17-point programme. Point 15 of that programme laid down the Fianna Fáil approach to subsidies and to price control, and explained that it was intended to maintain subsidies and a system of price control.

In the Budget of last year subsidies were either abolished or substantially reduced. For some commodities they were abolished; for all commodities I think they were reduced. Now the Minister argued here this morning that because the total sum voted for subsidies as shown in the Book of Estimates is higher than the sum included in the Supplementary Budget of 1947 they are still maintaining subsidies. He went on to express the view that subsidies were bad and that it would be impossible now to reintroduce subsidies at the required level if prices were to be maintained at the level which existed prior to the Budget of last year.

My real complaint against the Government is that, in the light of the circumstances which the Minister described here, the Government decided in the Budget of last year to reduce subsidies. The Minister has referred here to the fact that the world trend in regard to a number of prices was downward and he hopes—although this view has often been expressed— for a period of price stability. I remember some time last autumn he expressed a similar view. He now expresses a view that we may reach that desirable situation next autumn.This hoped-for drop in price levels or hoped-for period of stability has not been reached. Although a variety of commodities have shown a tendency to drop in price, it was in those circumstances, when price stability might have been reached, that the Government decided to reduce or eliminate the food subsidies. The result of that decision has been that a wages and prices spiral was started after the Budget of last year. The present cost-of-living index figure shows that the cost of living has risen 12 or 13 points over what it was immediately after the Government came into office.

It has been argued here that the social welfare benefits that were given compensated for the deterioration which occurred due to the elimination or reduction of subsidies in last year's Budget. Even if we admit for a moment that it went some way towards it—and I do not believe anyone could say that 1/6 a week for the old age pensioner compensated for the substantial increase in the price of foodstuffs occasioned by the removal of subsidies last year—the position has deteriorated since then. Only last week there was this rise in the price of butter.

The Minister has argued, on the one hand, that if we imported foreign butter it would be possible to sell it here at 3/9 a lb. I think that was the price mentioned by him during a discussion in University College recently. On the other hand, it has been stated that if price control was abandoned a reduction might take place. We must stand on either one foot or the other. We cannot suggest that because it was possible to import some commodity from some part of the world that we are not doing it because it would jeopardise our own interests or the interests of the farmer; that, on the other hand, we would allow particular prices to find their own level if it would not effect the interests of some workers or the interests of the smaller concerns. We should either abandon price control or apply it effectively.

The Minister's case is that the Prices Advisory Body recommended a numberof these increases. I do not believe that the Government should shelter behind the Prices Advisory Body and, at the same time, make the case that price control is keeping prices up. Either drop the Prices Advisory Body and let prices find their own level over the whole range of prices or let the Prices Advisory Body function for all commodities rather than for some and not for others.

I think it is true to say that in almost every case—certainly in every case of an essential foodstuff—where decontrol has been allowed to operate, there has been a rise in prices. There has been a rise in the price of meat and the price of fish. Almost every other commodity that was the subject of a recent investigation and in respect of which decontrol followed, has increased in price. The real weakness, however, is the fact that the Government reduced or eliminated subsidies last year. That began a wages demand due to the increase in the cost of living, and that wages demand, in turn, affected the prices of other commodities.

I do not know whether it was reasonable to expect price stabilisation last year if that increase had not been allowed to take place. However serious some price rises might have been, the result of the Government's decision in last year's Budget was to unleash the full effect of a substantial rise in the price of many essential commodities. That was followed by these wage demands. It is a matter of satisfaction that it was possible to reach agreement on a number of these wage applications without any serious dislocation and I think that the public servants who have been affected by the Government's decision not to honour in the current year the award of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal, have legitimate grounds for serious complaint. If any other employer had so acted in face of an award of the Labour Court, in face of an award, say, for E.S.B. workers, or C.I.E. workers, it does not require much imagination to realise what the result would have been. The same is true in the case of the Government, which should set an example.

I have sympathy with the viewpoint expressed by the Minister when he asks: "Can we get agreement not to press for increased demands or for increased sums of money for particular types of expenditure or for particular schemes or services?" That is all right provided it goes for the whole field, but if certain sections get an increase, if increased expenditure is sanctioned for particular schemes, if proposals are approved for increased expenditure or for the granting of increased prices for certain commodities, then it is unreasonable to suggest that other sections should withhold making their demands or that other sections who have already made their demands should not be granted the same consideration, and the same percentage increase from the public purse, as is granted in particular cases.

The Minister, in the course of his speech, referred to the fact that in a period when prices are falling trade is bad, slump conditions follow and generally conditions are worse for the community as a whole. At the present time prices in general are not falling, and I do not think anyone can claim that conditions are good. It is common knowledge that in many trades and businesses slump conditions exist. In other cases there has been a trade recession and although prices are rising there has been a substantial rise in the number of unemployed. The latest figure is over 89,000 for the last date in February. The condition which the Minister has mentioned in which prices are not falling, has been followed here by slump conditions although prices are continuing at a high level.

We have had recently discussions on some economic factors which have contributed to the present trade recession. It was suggested here in the course of a debate that some of the unemployment which resulted was due to the heavy imports during the end of 1950 and early in 1951. Allowing that that may be true in respect of certain commodities, does anyone suggest that houses were imported or that any effort was made to import commodities of that type? Yet we see from the most recently published figures that there has been a substantial increase inthe numbers of unemployed workers formerly employed in housing and construction work. I noticed recently references by the Minister for Local Government, and, I think, by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to the fact that professional charges contributed to high building costs. If professional charges are the only charges contributing to high building costs— and I do not claim to be in a position to evaluate the services rendered— does anyone suggest that professional charges in the aggregate have increased building costs by anything like the figure due to increased interest charges for small dwellings loans and housing loans generally? I do not believe that that case can be seriously made. The Taoiseach recently said that if the situation were analysed, the Government would do something about it. It is common knowledge amongst workers in this city, and I think amongst skilled tradesmen in most cities throughout the country, that there has been a serious drop in building operations and that if it were not for local authority schemes the situation would be much worse. In many counties the situation has deteriorated because many of the local authority schemes have either come to an end or are nearing completion.

If the case is to be made that certain factors are contributing to high building costs, then let us have it analysed, but do not make a bad case in an effort to gloss over the real cause of it. If professional fees are responsible then let that aspect be examined. If the cost of materials is responsible, if wages are responsible, if interest charges are responsible, or to whatever extent all these in the aggregate affect the cost of building, let the question be analysed, and let us have a clear picture presented to us. The serious situation that now exists in the country is that, although there appears to be a world-wide downward trend in the price of some commodities, we have reached a position here in which we have become a high-price country. A variety of factors are contributing to that. We have, on the whole, reached a stage in which the cost of living here is high compared with that existing in any similar country whilethe employment position shows tendencies of serious deterioration.

I saw recently a statement in which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach referred to the fact that there were more people in employment. It may be true that there are more people in certain types of employment, but it is equally true that there are more people unemployed now than at any time in the last ten years. There is now no accurate check on the numbers emigrating. I do not believe I am exaggerating when I say that Deputies are besieged by persons seeking work, persons genuinely anxious to get employment and who find it difficult or impossible to do so. I do not suggest that all this has been caused by the present Government. Some of the factors which have contributed to the prevailing rise in prices would be outside the control of any Government, but the Government initiated last year a departure from the economic policy that had previously been operated in respect to food subsidies. That began a spiral of prices and wages, the consequences of which have not yet been fully realised or the repercussions of which may not have been fully felt yet.

The position that now exists is that it is difficult to see what immediate remedy can be applied. The suggestion of the Minister that it would require substantially increased taxation in order to reintroduce the subsidies is undoubtedly true but the Government while speaking with one voice has been acting with another. The Minister for Industry and Commerce and other Ministers have stated that the limit has been reached, that taxation is imposing a staggering liability on the country and that additional demands for increased expenditure must be resisted. While we have all these sentiments couched in the most eloquent phrases by Ministers, the Book of Estimates presented to us this morning shows a rise of about £6,000,000 on that presented last year and that without any allowance in respect of the food subsidies because of the changes that were made in last year's Budget.

I believe that if the country weregenuinely convinced that the limit of expenditure in certain spheres had been reached or that a limit was imposed by a possible reduction in the revenue returns, there would be general acceptance of a limitation of expenditure in certain directions but if we continue to incur expenditure on non-essentials while some essentials clamour for attention, it is unreasonable to ask the country, or unreasonable to expect the public, to support the campaign to impose an overall limit. I do not think that the Government has made a serious attempt to grapple with the problem. I do not deny that there are difficulties, that there are many problems that require close and serious attention, that some decisions which may have to be taken will be unpopular but if the situation were tackled in a courageous manner, if the Government were frank with the country and said: "We initiated a campaign when we were elected in June 1951 which was dishonest when we alleged that there had been extravagance and we found on examination that there was no extravagance; we have since had to provide for far more increases than we expected", there might be a recognition that the Government was making a real contribution towards the solution of the problems which now confront the people.

In regard to many items of taxation a limit has been reached and additional taxes would result in a decrease rather than an increase in revenue. The prices of almost every essential commodity have shown a substantial rise and it is not even clear that the limit has been reached. At the same time we see a drop in employment, a reduction in some cases in output and a slump over many spheres of activity.

We have made it quite clear that we do not believe there is an easy solution to this problem. We believe that if the country was satisfied that an effort was being made, if the Dáil had confidence in the Government and if the country had confidence in the Government, we could tackle these problems in the same courageous manner as we attacked and surmounted them in the past.

This Government has clearly no confidence in its own policy. Its own policy bears no relation to the published policy which it laid down after the general election two years ago. Its own programme bears no relation to it. It has continued to expend more money and impose higher taxes. It has allowed in some cases by direct Government action a substantial increase in prices. If it had maintained the undertaking which was given in the 15-point programme but found that, because of price variations, it was necessary to approach the Dáil for more money to meet the increased subsidies, then the country would recognise that the problem had become aggravated but that the Government was making an effort to deal with it.

We have now reached a position in which the country has almost no confidence in the possibility of reaching a solution of the difficulties that confront us. It is time for the Government to decide either to deal with the problem or allow the electorate to express the opinion which we on this side of the House believe they would express that they have no confidence in the ability if the Government to surmount the difficulties or to provide a sound, economic policy that will achieve the aims which we believe are possible of achievement. They are aims which Ministers express to be desirable but they are also aims which the Government have not even tried to realise by any action on their part.

I believe that the position which developed because of the Government's decision in last year's Budget has greatly worsened the prospects of any immediate improvement. The limits have been reached in regard to the possibility of increased revenue, in fact, the indications are that there should be a policy of financial easement, a reduction in certain taxes rather than an increase.

We believe that, if the Government stated it did not intend to add additional burdens, to ask for additional expenditure or impose additional liabilities because the limits had been reached and was prepared to stand on that, a case could be made for definiteaction and for a stand on a particular line. While we have had these sentiments and views expressed, we have seen no action which would follow the sentiments expressed or the views propounded.

I believe the country wants an immediate election. I believe the country wants an opportunity of electing an alternative Government wherever it comes from. The people want an opportunity of giving the country a Government that will be entitled to speak and to act in the name of the people. If this debate achieves the purpose for which it was initiated, if it achieves the purpose for which it was moved, it will have achieved some success by making the Government realise that present conditions cannot be allowed to continue and that some effective action, either by way of a dissolution or by the proper policies being put into operation, must be adopted. I believe that the motion which is before the House deserves support, because it is moved in the hope that effective action will follow its adoption.

Mr. Cogan

I think it is quite common in this House for some Deputies to accuse the Minister for Industry and Commerce of making gloomy speeches. Deputy Dunne to-day described the Minister's speech as "gloom, gloom and still more gloom". I listened attentively to the speech of the Minister and also to the speech of his opposite number, and I would say that there was more confidence and optimism in the speech of the Minister for Industry and Commerce than could be found in the speech made by Deputy Cosgrave.

I am not condemning Deputy Cosgrave for that. He made a serious contribution to this debate, but, running through it all, there was a note of despair. He asked for an election and an opportunity for the people to return an alternative Government. Running through that demand there was no indication that that would offer the country any hope. He knew perfectly well, while he was speaking, that an election, if it did result in an alternative Government, would be worse for the country.Nobody knows that better than Deputy Cosgrave. He knows that a Government, composed of Deputy Dunne and the people who performed here last night, would have much less hope of solving our economic problems than the present Government have.

There has been a good deal of talk about the rising cost of living. Everybody acknowledges that the cost of living has risen. The figures show that. The figures show that since 1950 the cost of living has risen from 100 to 123 points but half that rise occurred before the change of Government. In the middle of 1951, when the change of Government occurred, the cost of living had risen by 11 points. It has risen by a further 11 points since that so that if there is to be any accusation against anybody for a rise in the cost of living half of the blame must be taken by theinter-Party Government. I do not think there is any sense or meaning in making accusations of this kind against either the inter-Party Government or the present Government. The rise in the cost of living was inevitable because the cost of raw materials had increased and the wages had gone up. There was a rise in wages long before there was any question of a reduction of the subsidies.

There is one point I want to make within the few minutes available to me. There have been sharp attacks from Deputies O'Higgins and Dunne and other members of the Opposition on the Government for having increased the price of butter. That is an attack on the farmers. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 11th March, 1953.