Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Dec 1925

Vol. 13 No. 20

DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - RETAIL PRICES OF FOODS— ESTABLISHMENT OF TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY.

I move:—

Go bhfuil sé oiriúnach Binse do bhunú chun féachaint isteach i ní áirithe go bhfuil deabha agus tácht phuiblí ag baint leis, sé sin le rá, praghsanna miondíola earraí a caithtear go generálta agus modh- anna praiticiúla chun luíoduithe do dhéanamh ortha ag tabhairt aire speisialta don difríocht idir na praghsanna a gheibheann saothrath- oirí agus na praghsanna a íocann caithteoirí.

That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for enquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the retail prices of articles of general consumption and practical methods of effecting reductions therein, with special regard to the difference between the prices received by producers and the prices paid by consumers.

This resolution was promised in reply to a question set down by Deputy Cooper on the 18th of last month. That reply was as follows:—

I understand the facts to be as stated in the question, but the latest information available would suggest that the establishment of a Food Council does not entirely solve the problem of reductions in the cost of living.

The Executive Council is, however, prepared to move a Resolution in each House of the Oireachtas to the effect that it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the cost of certain articles of general consumption.

Should that resolution be adopted by the Dáil and Seanad, it would then be possible to establish a tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, and to confer on it powers to summon witnesses and to examine them on oath and to require the production of documents.

The setting down of this motion to-day is in fulfilment of the promise given in that answer. I am not going to stress here the urgency of this matter. On the same day on which Deputy Cooper put that question, the matter was raised again on the adjournment, in order to get fuller information. I rather indicated the point of view then, that not a great deal in the way of results could be solidly and immediately hoped for from the establishment of this committee. I do not want to say anything more than that. I think the committee should be given the fullest possible powers we can give them under this Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act to ensure that they get the fullest information. I believe they can get information, but that the securing of that information will lead to the other desired result—a lowering of prices—is a matter about which I cannot prophesy. I have been particular to introduce into the resolution this phrase, "practical methods of effecting reductions therein," because I do not want the result to be that the committee would be got together, a certain number of witnesses heard, a certain amount of evidence sifted, and after that that there should be simply a certain state of facts revealed with regard to a particular commodity or a series of commodities. That evidence might disclose profiteering. It might disappoint those in favour of this Committee and those who hope for immediate results from it by not disclosing profiteering. It might disclose, as I said before, a peculiar system of distribution in the country, which is economically unsound, but the changing of which would be a matter of years. Even if it did disclose profiteering, it might emerge that there is no practical way of dealing with profiteering at a single blow or even over a period. The House, however, will be in the possession of certain information, once this Committee has heard evidence, and once it has recorded its view on the evidence put before it, but I think it is necessary that the tribunal should be asked to give their view as to practical methods of effecting reductions in whatever subjects they may bring within the scope of their inquiry.

I think that that is the answer. I insist on it that that should be there, for if it is not the result will simply be that the Government, or this House, will be handed a certain amount of information and the natural result will be that people will look for an immediate reduction in prices. I foresee two difficulties in regard to this Committee, but I do not want to emphasise them. They might, in some slight way, prejudice the work of the Committee, and I think it should be given every possible chance. The Tribunal of Evidence Inquiry Act, which I have here, was taken over under the general legislation, and it is the only Act applicable to this type of inquiry in this country at present. It gives the fullest power to summon on oath and have documents and other material produced, and it allows for sittings in camera and in public. It is the only possible means of getting evidence with regard to matters of this sort and of collecting information. I have no doubt it can get all the information that can be extracted from people supposed to be in a position to give information. It is about the second part of the work of the tribunal that I have doubts—can the tribunal suggest practical methods of effecting reductions even when it has got the information? The resolution has been framed generally to inquire into the retail prices of articles of general consumption. There may be some objection to that. People may argue that it would be better to set down one item and ask for an inquiry into that, or to choose one or two items and so limit the work of the Committee. I think it better that the Committee should have before it whatever discussion may ensue here, and have the advantage of the points of view expressed by the Seanad and Dáil, as to what the inquiry should be directed, but it would, in my opinion, be unwise to limit the Committee to one or two items. If later it seems to the Dáil and Seanad that the tribunal is setting out in the wrong direction, it would be open to me to bring in a further resolution calling the attention of the Committee specifically to certain matters, but in the beginning I think it would be better to allow the tribunal to be set up and to have it understand what is the task before it.

The tribunal may have to call evidence under this Tribunal of Evidence Inquiry Act to see what is the most important matter which requires immediate attention. Having power to call evidence for that purpose, the tribunal will be in a better position to judge what article of general consumption calls for attack first. I suggest that it would be better to leave it to the tribunal to set out these articles in an order, having determined the matter after hearing evidence. If it is later seen that is wrong, we could amend this and direct attention to certain articles. The question of the personnel of the tribunal is not a matter with which I can deal at present. It is impossible to ask people to serve on the tribunal until it is sure to be set up. It should not be difficult to get it set up, with the exception of the chairman, and that is a matter over which there will be difficulty. The tribunal operates under a technical Act and I think it is almost essential that the chairman should be a lawyer. There will be, I think, a certain amount of difficulty in getting a lawyer to give his services as chairman of the Committee, but it should not be insuperable. I move the motion.

There were moments when I thought that the Minister had come to bury the motion rather than to praise it. I agree, however, that it is wise not to raise false hopes. Although the work of this proposed tribunal may be important and valuable, it probably will not bring about an immediate reduction in the prices of essential articles. It is, I think, a move in the right direction. It is a step to recognise the magnitude of the problem, and I am glad to see that we have at last admitted the urgency of the problem of food prices. High prices for food and articles of general consumption are at the bottom of half the discontent and trouble in this country, and at the bottom of half the injury to business enterprise. The Tribunal of Evidence of Inquiry Act refers to the instrument by which the tribunal is appointed. I take it that this resolution is not the instrument and, perhaps, the Minister could indicate whether the instrument will be a further resolution or order.

An order, I think.

Certain things have to be specified in the instrument. As regards the scope of the inquiry, I have referred to the procedure at the British inquiry and I find that on the whole the words used in connection with that inquiry have been followed closely. There is, however, an important omission. In this resolution we have mention of retail prices of articles of general consumption, whereas the British wording referred to the conditions prevailing in the wholesale and retail trades of articles of food and general consumption. Ours is wider and at the same time, narrower. It is wider inasmuch as it is not confined to food or clothing but it can consider food, clothing, newspapers, and so forth. I do not know that you can satisfactorily inquire into retail prices without inquiring also into wholesale prices. I would not be surprised if a retailer came before the tribunal and said: "I got this article at so much from a wholesaler and my profit is so and so." I should like the Minister to consider whether the inclusion of the word "wholesale" is not necessary. Perhaps he could deal with it later by a resolution.

Is it not implied in the last three lines?

I do not think that we can proceed by implication in this matter. A person called in evidence might refuse to answer questions with regard to a wholesale business and might be justified in doing so because the word "wholesale" is not mentioned in the resolution. The Minister is also a lawyer, and if he is satisfied that that word is not essential I, too, will be satisfied. As regards the general scope of the inquiry the Minister may be right in saying that it is better not to be too specific, not to indicate exactly what articles are to be inquired into. There again I feel that a person who is called and who does not want to give evidence will say: "Mine are not articles of general consumption. I am a butcher and there are a number of vegetarians in the world." Liquor prices may be engaging attention and the person called may say: "There are many men occupying eminent positions who are teetotalers, therefore these are not articles of general consumption." I hope the Minister is satisfied with that. The inquiry must begin with certain specific things. If it is to be a roving inquiry which one day talks about bread, the next about boots, and the day after about vegetables, it will not get anywhere. It is better to follow the example of the British inquiry and concentrate on two or three things. The two things to concentrate on would, in my opinion, be the prices of bread and meat, as in regard to them we have the investigations of the British tribunal. Bread and meat are world-wide commodities. Bread comes from all over the world, and meat is obtained so far away as New Zealand and the Argentine. The fact that inquiry into them has been made by economists in Great Britain is bound to be of great assistance to us. We could also get information with regard to them from our Government Departments. The Army run an abattoir at the Curragh, not on a profit-making basis, and we ought to be able to get from them a fair price as to killing of meat, and you could add to that a reasonable amount for distribution and overhead charges. We ought to be able to compare the cost of a loaf in the Army with the cost of a loaf produced by an individual. There are two other points to which I hope investigation will be directed as soon as the Committee is set up. These are the prices of vegetables and milk. There you have producers and consumers, and the middleman's profit would want to be carefully investigated. As to the composition of the Committee, I agree with the Minister that it would be obviously impossible to announce the names at this stage. I suggest, however, that one member ought to be a chartered accountant, or someone accustomed to dealing with figures, because the tribunal will almost necessarily have to examine long balance-sheets, and unless a man has a facility in dealing with figures he will likely miss the true point.

There ought also be either one or two Labour representatives, and I think there should most certainly be a woman, if possible an ordinary housewife living in Dublin, Cork or Waterford, who goes out and buys her food and who knows the prices in shops. If the Minister tells me that he does not know where to find such a woman, I can tell him that he will find a very good one on the benches of his own party. The Minister said that there is no certain way of dealing with profiteering. He is quite right. There is no patent medicine in this matter, but there is one great enemy of profiteering, and that is publicity, which is the anti-toxin with which the body politic can be inoculated to crush profiteering. I am not making wholesale charges against profiteers. I have no doubt that many charges could bear inquiry and that very often the trader will be in a position to say that he has only taken an ordinary commercial profit, but there are men who seek to turn national calamities and shortages to the advantage of their own pocket.

In October, 1846, in the middle of the great famine, the then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, writing to the British Prime Minister, said:

"I have no fear of carrying this into effect if the price of provisions does not thwart me, but the increasing price and the avarice of merchants in hoarding their corn gives me greater uneasiness."

That has happened in the past, and may happen again. I believe the best protection against it is publicity and the knowledge that the State does not recognise the right to make an unlimited profit at the cost of the poorest in the community.

I welcome the establishment of this tribunal. I am not sure if the Minister stated that the tribunal was to have powers to compel witnesses to come forward and give information, and to compel the production of accounts and books, because as far as I remember in connection with the previous tribunal on prices it found itself up against the problem that it was not able to force witnesses to come before it and give definite information with regard to their business, and to produce balance sheets and statements of accounts. I agree with Deputy Major Bryan Cooper that the main advantage of this tribunal will be the publicity it will give to the question. I do not hope for any immediate results from it. I think they will be slow, but there will be results in the end. The sittings of this tribunal will be published in the papers, and people will read and talk about it. If there are any flagrant cases of profiteering disclosed in the matter people connected with that class of business will be influenced to take action about reducing prices.

In modern times there has been a considerable increase in the numbers of the community engaged in the distributing trade, and the question as to whether the difference in the prices paid to the producer and the retail prices is used up in the form of profiteering or used up by the excessive number of distributors, is a problem that is growing in other countries. In France the number of distributors has increased altogether out of proportion to the number of people engaged in the productive trades and professions. Personally I am inclined to think there is profiteering in certain directions. Evidence available to the ordinary man in the street points in that direction. We in the farming community are probably affected by that to a greater extent than others, for we are producers of the raw material. We sell in the wholesale market, and are obliged to buy in the dearest retail market, that is the smaller retail shops in the country.

Why are you obliged to do so?

Existing conditions force us into that position. There may be remedies, but they are not easily available, and it is difficult to get farmers to avail of these remedies as freely as they might. The conditions, however, exist, and I believe the tribunal may have some effect in remedying them. I want to know from the Minister if it will be possible for the tribunal to get information from the Income Tax Department? I quite understand it will be out of the question to expect that the private affairs of an individual should be exhibited in the tribunal, but I see no reason why selected cases should not be placed before it—cases which are common to the different classes of traders or distributors—and why accounts without the names of the people concerned should not be placed before it. This will give the tribunal a chance of knowing the extent of the profits obtained from the particular businesses concerned. On the whole I feel this tribunal will have some effect, perhaps not a great effect, but it is a step in the right direction. I agree that the best effect will result from the publicity. I think at this stage an appeal should be made to the people directly concerned, the people who are complaining about prices, that they should come forward freely and give information. The difficulty that arose in connection with the last Commission on prices was the reluctance of people to give information, and in many places where the tribunal sat it was found impossible to get people to give information with regard to complaints made. Deputy Major Bryan Cooper suggested that on this tribunal there should be representatives of labour and of the housekeeping class. I would suggest to the Minister that the farmers should also be represented. I think if anything they are more intimately concerned in this problem than even labour. I believe it would be quite wrong to establish a tribunal of this sort in which the farming community would not have adequate representation.

I am not very confident as to the result of an inquiry of the kind it is proposed to establish under this Resolution. We are informed that it is a definite matter of urgent public importance. I do not know what has happened to make it urgent to-day when it was not urgent six or twelve months or two years ago, and as to the definiteness, an inquiry is to be held into the "retail prices of articles of general consumption and practical methods of effecting reductions therein with special regard to the difference between the prices received by producers and the prices paid by consumers." If that is "definite" I do not know what "general" is, because I can see within that resolution the likelihood of a very long and very widely spread inquiry into articles of general consumption, including the bread, meat, vegetables and milk. If it includes that, and also the immense variety of commodities that are imported, such as tinned foods, clothing, boots, blankets, bed covering, furniture, and the hundred and one articles that enter into the consumption of every household, the inquiry will last interminably. They are all articles of general consumption, unless we accept Deputy Cooper's view that only an article that is consumed by everybody without exception is an article of general consumption.

That is not my view, but I put it as a view that might be urged.

With regard to the difference between the prices received by the producers and the prices paid by consumers, these articles I have mentioned are in the main produced outside this country, and I think we would find it difficult to get a Commission to report with any speed if they are to inquire into the difference between the prices received by producers and the prices paid by consumers here. Surely we are not to consider the price paid for tea in India and China, the price paid in the Argentine to the producers of maize, or that paid to the producers of the bacon that comes from Canada? I take it that what is intended is the price paid to the producers of commodities in Ireland, and the price paid by consumers of these particular classes of commodities. As the motion is drawn it is so very wide and indefinite that the inquiry is going to be a very long one. As to the question of a permanent tribunal, I am inclined to the view that a small tribunal, or a small official committee, having for its purpose the collection of data respecting the prices paid to producers in this country, or by importers, and the prices charged by retailers—a permanent body sitting with powers to collect data and publish periodically and regularly, or as they think it necessary, all the information that is available is more likely to be of permanent value than this proposed tribunal.

I am very glad that the word profiteering has not been introduced. I have not yet had from anybody a satisfactory definition of the term. It is used very loosely, and as though it were a well understood term. Without a very definite meaning being attached to the word people are apt to be very much confused. I agree that publication of the facts would probably have as useful an influence as anything else in the present state of public thought. I will not suggest here, though it might be suggested to the tribunal if it is set up, that a public market with a definite fixed rate of profit for certain classes of commodities might be established in every town.

That might be one way of securing at least the maximum advantage, but even that in the present stage, with public opinion in the country towns the way it is, when commodities are sold by shopkeepers at ten and twenty per cent. higher than the same goods can be purchased near by, because the brother, sister, cousin, or aunt of the purchaser is the keeper of the shop— that is a factor that weighs very greatly in the matter of prices. We had, a little while ago, a statement made by a Deputy here regarding the price of bread. I had a communication from the Cork Co-operative Society, in which they say that their price for bread in Cork is 9d. per pair, while the allegation of the Deputy was that the price in general was 11d. The co-operative bread sold at 9d. in Cork is produced under trade union conditions, with trade union wages paid, and with 75 per cent. of the flour guaranteed to be milled in Ireland, but nevertheless a price for bread considerably higher than that rules even in Cork. Now, I suppose, to use a common word, it is the psychological factor that has to be dealt with. Publicity, probably, is the best method that can be used unless we are prepared to use the powers of the State, of public institutions and of public bodies for the purpose of putting forward in every locality a public market or a public store. I am afraid public opinion is not prepared for that. My only suggestion is that the resolution itself should be restricted rather than amplified, that it should confine itself to a series of named articles, and that it should be a small tribunal, permanent or with continuous existence, making periodical reports upon its work. The factor that I think Deputy Heffernan hinted at of finance and currency will also, I have no doubt, come within the scope of an inquiry of this kind, unless the Chairman is prepared to rule very strictly that only the ordinary factors of wages, expenses and profits are allowed to be the subject of the inquiry. In general, I feel that the motion opens too wide an inquiry to have any assurance of an early and effective report.

I am very glad to be able to support this motion. I am not in the least surprised that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is quite confident as to the results that will be achieved. As one who has had some experience in this matter, I agree with him that there are two things that must be taken into consideration. One is the old-fashioned method of distribution that costs so much, and the other is that there are far too many people distributing articles in proportion to the number of people producing them. Any Commission that is set up will find itself up against these two important factors. As regards the resolution itself, I think it is far too indefinite. Like Deputy Johnson, I would like to see something more fixed in it. It seems to me that when the tribunal is set up it will have to set itself to the task of drawing up a list of the articles that are going to be inquired into. When one considers the word consumption here, one is rather at a loss to know whether it means consumption as food or consumption in the use of clothing and boots. When I looked at the resolution at first, I was under the impression that possibly nothing but food stuffs were to be inquired into. Someone suggested that it may be necessary to go outside the word "consumption" as understood in the resolution, and to include articles of clothing. Deputy Cooper suggested that one might regard the ordinary bottle of stout as an article of consumption. Deputy Johnson has now raised another point about articles manufactured elsewhere and brought in here, and as to how we can get any definite information with regard to the prices charged for tea, sugar and other articles brought into this country. It will be very hard, I think, to get definite information as to what is the cost of the production of these articles so that a comparison might be made as to the retail prices charged.

There is another very important item that, no doubt, will be brought before the Commission. That is the great difference in price for the same articles sold in houses side by side. That is brought to one's notice practically every day. In one house you see an article labelled to be sold at 2/3, and in the next house you see the same article of the same quality and in the same state of preservation labelled to be sold at 2/6. That is a thing that will have to be inquired into. At the moment I have no intention of going into this matter of prices or into anything that would in any way interfere with the work of the Commission. I do know that the work of the Commission is not going to be easy. I know, too, that when the members of the Commission are finished with their work they will feel very dissatisfied as to the results of it. I suggest that what the Minister has stated is of the greatest possible importance, that there is no use in the members of the Commission simply putting down their findings about things. They will have to suggest some way of carrying out improvements that will be of practical use.

As I said before, the old method of distribution is intolerable. One is surprised at the enormous amount of money that is spent in the distribution of important articles such as milk and bread. Unless the members of the Commission set themselves to find some practical methods by which this large expenditure can be overcome they can scarcely hope to have done any good. At all events I am sure every Deputy in the House will support this resolution. It may be somewhat indefinite. One would prefer to have it much more definite in its terminology so that the Commission may not start on a wild-goose chase after a hopeless set of articles for consumption, and waste not only months but years in getting them.

I do not think this motion is going to do a great deal of good. This Commission, if set up, is going to be like a great many others set up by the Government. For example, it will be like the Old Age Pension Commission; nothing will come of it. Like every other Commission set up by the Dáil, the findings of this Commission, when they are arrived at, after perhaps twelve months' investigation, will all end in a bottle of smoke. The workers of Ireland will get no advantage from it. The Government have the opportunity now, if they would but avail of it, of introducing proper legislation to regulate food prices. Let them pass legislation by which Committees could be set up, in each town, to compel the traders who, in their opinion, are profiteers, to exhibit their prices and also their cost of production.

What is profiteering?

Overcharging. The cost of living, as we know, is higher in the Saorstát than in that portion of Ireland with which we were so anxious to come to agreement a few days ago. The cost of living in the Saorstát is also higher than in the sister nation as we now call it. During the time of the war, when the British Government were here, they did regulate food prices, and if the Minister is serious, and no doubt he is, in trying to have the cost of living reduced, he will form Committees, such as I have suggested, in the different towns to deal with the matter. If he sets up this Commission it may last for two years and prices will continue the same. I think the least he should do is to have the workers and the general citizens safeguarded against paying exorbitant prices, and I think they should demand the right to have representation upon this tribunal. I think that is absolutely necessary. The farmer is a man who produces the greater portion of our food supplies, and he gets the smallest prices in return. The middleman, who purchases from him, can charge 50 or 60 per cent. over and above what the farmer charges. The result is that the farmer cannot pay his wages—at least he says he cannot. He has no market but the middleman, and when the article he sells reaches the consumer it has reached a figure several prices above what the farmer got for it. I think the farmers should have representation upon any Commission set up to deal with food prices, but I hold that it is only on the threat of having such a tribunal in existence that the Government are going to work, and, consequently, there may not be as much profiteering by the middleman while it is in existence. However, I welcome the measure as it is.

I desire to say a few words. I think this is a very important matter, probably one of the most important that this House could deal with. There are, undoubtedly, too many people in this country engaged in distribution, and while, in some cases, the profits made may not be very great, still when there are so many people engaged in distribution it makes it absolutely necessary that each person so engaged must get a living out of the sale of these commodities. I think the Minister, or the committee that he sets up, would do well to bear in mind what Deputy Cooper said, and they would be well advised to take bread and meat, and try to deal with these two items at the beginning. It seems to me to be nothing short of a scandal the way the price of the four-pound loaf varies in this country. It varies from ninepence to a shilling and one-and-twopence. The position is that in most of the smaller towns in the country the lowest price charged for the four-pound loaf is one shilling, while it is retailed in some of the larger towns as low as ninepence. It is retailed by the Cork Co-operative Society at ninepence, and ninety per cent. of the flour they use, not seventy-five per cent., as Deputy Johnson stated, is milled in Ireland.

I think it would be advisable that this committee should be a small committee, and that, if possible, it should sit continuously, and make periodic reports to the Minister. But there is very little use in the committee sitting, and hearing evidence, and making reports unless the Minister is prepared to act upon them, and to come to the House and seek whatever powers are necessary to give effect to the recommendations of the committee. If this resolution only means that a commission will be set up, and that evidence will be taken from certain people about the prices of commodities, and that a certain amount of publicity will be given, and that this is to be the end of it, there is no use bringing it into existence at all. I should say, in regard to the points made by Deputy Lyons, when he mentioned the Old Age Pensions Committee, that I was a member of that committee, and I think it is only fair to the Minister for Finance to say that the Commission only very recently submitted their report to him.

Why did not the Dáil get the report?

The Minister for Finance has not had the report for a sufficient time in his hands to say what he is going to do.

The resolution before the House was proposed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and, may I say at the outset, that I do not think the Minister's heart was in his job. In fact, I think the Minister wanted to know why on earth he was asked to bring forward such a resolution as this, and he answered by saying Deputy Cooper had inaugurated a discussion upon this subject which necessitated his formulating this resolution. The resolution means a lot, and it means nothing. It is what you would call a profound resolution, and the discussion that has followed, on the rather brief introduction of this measure, has been very much on a par with the Boundary discussion, because I think we leave off pretty much where we started. It has been said that there are a great many things wrong, but there has been no indication whatsoever of how they are to be put right. I think Deputy Johnson, in his wisdom, is also very sceptical about this, and I think the Labour Party, as a whole, may be sceptical, because the reference to the Commission is so wide that it may bring in the question of wages.

Does Deputy Hewat suggest that the Minister for Industry and Commerce would not have his heart in that?

I do not think he would. I think he has his hands full of that already. The man in the street is represented by some Deputies as of a kind that makes vague accusations that everyone is doing him in the eye, while he is doing nobody in the eye. He is the unfortunate victim of the machinations of vulturous traders, and everybody else. Deputy Sir James Craig did not, I think, refer specifically to the Commission on which he and I sat. It was connected with prices. We started with great enthusiasm. The public were demanding reductions and complaining that they were being overcharged and treated scandalously by the traders. We were to put that right. We spent an immense amount of time in dealing with the matter, but the public did not even as much as come to hear the evidence that was given before us. On that Commission were representatives of the housekeepers and of Labour. I think it was a fine Commission. If any Deputy wants to see what a Commission of the sort is going to produce, I would venture to suggest that he should get the verbatim report of the proceedings, which must have cost the country a great deal. I would ask him to read it, and, having read it, I would ask him was he any wiser. The selling price of an article is largely governed by what you pay for it, but what you pay for it may be the result of various ingredients from different sources.

It has been suggested that people's books should be produced for examination by the Commission without, I think, any understanding of what that means. Even the income tax authorities do not allow an examination of a firm's books. This Commission is going to go further than the inquisition that is allowed to the Income Tax Commissioners in the matter of examining people's books and private affairs. I tell you straight that there will be very considerable resistance to any such thing, and resistance which, I think, will be justified. Even the information which the Income Tax Commissioners get is under an oath of secrecy. If you are going to say that a commission is going to have liberty to disclose all the details of a man's business it may ruin that man so far as his competitors are concerned, and may involve the disclosing of trade secrets. If the Dáil visualises what they are going to do, or what they are going to require to be done, I think they will have to undertake very great responsibility if they permit such to take place.

We are told that there are too many distributors. I think we have been told that there are too many public-houses. Probably both statements are quite right. When the Commission has sat for months and months and got all the information they can get, what is the solution for the too many shops going to be? Are you going to compel the closing down of shops? As regards the regulation of prices, are you going to form organisations of trades which will be compelled to pay on the one side and receive on the other? Are you going, as a Dáil, to regulate interest on capital, working expenses and the hundred and one etceteras that go to make up a profit and loss account? Are you going to take any particular trade and say that what happens at the present time is that one trader is making vastly different profits from another man in the same trade, and that the man who is making the higher profits is doing something wrong? Are you going to assume that? Are you going to analyse the books of every person in that trade? Even if you come to the conclusion that a trade is charging more than it should for a particular article, what are you going to do? Really, a roving commission like that is not going to do any good, and it is going to do a great deal of harm. It is only people who do not think of what they are saying who talk about profiteering.

Deputy Heffernan, who supported the resolution, talked about the farmers. The farmer is an innocent man! He sells his commodities in the cheapest markets, and he buys everything he gets in the dearest. If that is so, it is no wonder that the farmers tell us here that they are not making any money, and that farming is an unprofitable occupation. It is unusual in any trade to act on those lines. After all, in trade a person's profit is, I think, largely due to his minding his business, buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest market. The farmer is not really so innocent as he would lead us to believe. We have heard the farmers holding up their stuff as well as other people, of cornering the market, in order to get a better price. If you go down to the oats market at the present moment you will find that the price of oats has jumped up from a very moderate price to a high price. There is nothing wrong in the farmer trying to get the best price he can, or the buyer trying to buy at the lowest price he can. The two points of view have to come together sooner or later, but they never come together until one or other of them gives way on some point, or until the purchaser needs to buy, or the seller needs to sell. It is only bunkum to say that prices can be regulated by any Commission. Prices are much more far-reaching than that. During the late war millions of money were spent on controlling the selling prices of everything under the sun. An organisation was set up which was the completest thing in the way of organisations for controlling prices, I suppose, that the world has ever seen. What was the result?

What was it?

Millions of men killed.

Well, it was not very satisfactory for anyone. If the advocates of this motion want to carry things to the logical conclusion they will come to a system of control similar to that of the Great War, and I hope the people will like it when they get it. I am not opposing this motion. Not at all! I am trying to say that it is foolishness, foolishness in its waste of time. I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce will have some difficulty in getting a chairman; possibly he may get one. There are so many people who seem to be badly off for something to do that perhaps a man can be found to spend the rest of his life in a chair. We saw the result of a campaign of publicity in connection with the Commission in London. They made the great discovery that the bakers were charging too much, and they stampeded them into reducing their prices. A few days afterwards the price of corn went up, and the price of bread went up again, and, as far as one can see, the beneficial result did not last very long. I do not think it was likely to last very long. Perhaps the public were satisfied. The Commission having done that, created a certain amount of confusion. Perhaps the public will be satisfied when you set up a broadcasting inquiry into the ramifications of business prices and everything else.

Does the Deputy know that a loaf of bread which cost 1/- in Ireland is being retailed for 9d. in England? So that the Commission had some effect.

I have some friends in the baking trade. I think that the comparative wages in London and Dublin is accounting for a good deal of it. I am not trailing my coat before Deputy Morrissey at all. But the Commission might come to the same conclusion as to the price of bread being so high.

They are selling the 4lb. loaf in Cork for 9d., and they are paying trade union wages.

Does the Deputy maintain that the recent increase in the price of oats is due to the holding back of the oats by the farmers, and that the farmers can control the price of oats?

I do think the farmers can control the price if they hold up their stuff. I am not saying that they are holding it up, but I say that would be a very fair explanation to give if such were the case.

It is not the case.

I do not know whether Deputy Heffernan is capable of answering that question or not.

It is quite evident that the Deputy who has just spoken in connection with this Commission has something to be afraid of, when he is prepared to throw cold water on the Commission. Everybody knows that there is profiteering going on. The Deputy has accused farmers of profiteering. I ask him are there any greater producers in the country than the farmers, and has any other section of the community less to say as regards the price of the articles they produce than the farmer? As regards the holding up of produce, the farmer cannot afford to do it. He has no place to keep it, and he has to meet his annuities and to pay his rent. It is well known that at the present time a great amount of annuities is due. Is it to be suggested that the farmers are holding up their crops in order to get higher prices and that they allow their annuities and rents to accumulate until the sheriff comes along. I think that that is a false statement to make in connection with the farming community. It is well known that the farmers are the people who produce most and gain the least by it.

I do not blame the farmers if they do hold up.

They cannot hold up.

I wish to support the motion made by the Minister for the formation of this tribunal. I am not at all as pessimistic as many of the speakers who debated the question who held that it is not going to do any good. A great many Deputies have spoken about the Commissions that have already sat, and held that they did little good. To my mind, there is scarcely any commission that sat since the initiation of this Government that did not do a vast amount of good. I think that this tribunal that it is now proposed to set up is badly wanted at the present moment. I think Deputy Johnson said its urgency is not great, if it was not urgent some time ago. I think it is better to right wrongs late than never.

The Deputy misunderstood my point. We are now called upon to do this as a matter of urgency. My point is that it is no more urgent than it was six months ago.

Mr. DOYLE

The longer it is delayed the more urgent it becomes. The articles that Deputy Cooper mentioned as those that should have first consideration are the proper articles. They are the food of every man and woman daily, and they require to be looked into to see if the price from the producer to the consumer does not allow a very wide margin of profit. We know, to our cost, that, in the case of agricultural products, a profit of 300 per cent. is added before they reach the consumer. I think that is a matter that requires inquiry by a tribunal such as this. Even if it only gave publicity to the matter, it would do some good. Some advantage would be gained even if the Minister never followed the inquiry up by legislation. Deputy Hewat complains about farmers coming here and complaining that they cannot make things pay, and he says that they are selling in the worst markets and buying in the dearest. I do not think any farmer does that of his own choice. It is necessary for a great many farmers to sell their commodities in the local markets. Transit to a larger or more distant market is so costly that it is out of the question. It is up to the farmer to sell in the best local market he can secure. I am sure that Deputy Hewat, from the experience of farming which he had some little time ago, can plainly see that farmers are not making a fortune. I should say that he was rather glad to get rid of his farm. I am quite sure that this tribunal set up by the Minister—I am quite sure he would not take it in hands except he was prepared to carry it out, as he carries out every other matter he takes in hands—will do good to the country.

I welcome the setting up of this tribunal by the Minister, because although we may not expect a new heaven and a new earth as the result of the motion, good will, nevertheless, accrue from it. Although prices were limited to some extent during the Great War, that did not stop profiteering. However, publicity is everything in matters of this sort, and I think the mere fact that this tribunal is in being will have a great effect on people who are inclined to be extortionate in their charges and, in some cases, to take advantage of poverty. I think Deputy Cooper said it was desirable to start with the most important articles of food—bread and meat. I agree with that, but I would add tea to the list. Although there is no duty on tea, there is no doubt that in certain country districts there is great profiteering going on in that commodity. In fact, country people are ignorant of the fact that the duty has been taken off. They have an idea that there is some duty on it still, and advantage is taken of their ignorance. Where tea is bought in small quantities, great hardship is done to people who have very little money to spend. I have not the slightest doubt that there is frightful profiteering in bread. Anybody who is fortunate enough to be able to have bread baked in his own house knows that he saves tremendously. It is clear that there must be considerable profiteering in the sale of bread.

Would Deputy Wolfe give us any figures to prove that?

I bake my own bread in my own house.

Does Deputy Wolfe keep any figures as to the cost?

I have not got particulars at the moment, but possibly I could get them later for the Deputy. I am perfectly convinced that there is a very great saving by home-baking.

I suppose Deputy Wolfe will not object to my assuring him that if he goes into the matter thoroughly he will find that he is labouring under a grave delusion as regards profiteering in bread.

My experience is as I have stated, and I have had bread baked in my house for over 30 years. As regards meat, it has always been the prevalent idea that, whatever the cost of cattle, the retail price is always high and, in the opinion of many people, too high. It will be for the tribunal to go into these matters, and the result should be of advantage. I do not think you could expect traders to disclose all their accounts. I do not think we have any right to go into their private affairs, but I think we have a right to expect that the prices of all articles should be properly exhibited in the shops, so that when people go in they will know exactly what the price of each article is. It should be the law that in every shop the chief articles of food should have the prices marked in plain figures. It is most important that the tribunal should consist of competent people and that the number should be small. It is very important that the chairman should be impartial and competent. I think a tribunal of this kind ought to be the beginning of a permanent institution. Even the knowledge that it is going to be appointed will have effects and I look forward, with confidence, to the result of the labours of the tribunal.

I am certainly in sympathy with the resolution brought forward by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I hope it will have the results that the initiator, Deputy Cooper, hopes for. The speech that we have just listened to from Deputy Hewat was a remarkable contribution. From beginning to end he criticised the effort that the Minister is about to make in this matter of overcharging for foodstuffs, but he ended up by saying he was in favour of the resolution.

I did not say that. I said I was not opposing the resolution.

That is tantamount to what I said.

Quite a different thing.

Deputy Hewat went on to say that the man in the street who, he supposed, was represented in this assembly, was for ever grumbling, and thought himself a victim at all times of the unscrupulous trader. I think it will be generally admitted that the man in the street—the worker and the person described as "middle class," with a fixed income—are continually grumbling that there is profiteering in this country. I am not in a position to say absolutely that there is, but if there is anything wanted in this country at the present moment it is contentment. We want something to remove the discontent that prevails all over the land. If this Commission were set up, even though it should prove to the public that there is no profiteering and no overcharging, it would have done good work. Deputy Hewat objects to a tribunal of this kind inquiring into the affairs of the different traders. But Deputy Hewat never objects when it is a question of going into the amount of the workman's wages. Deputy Hewat, I take it, is in favour of the wage that is being paid to the men on the Shannon scheme. The unfortunate man who is altogether down can take a job, and his affairs are open to the whole country. It is very easy to examine his position. He has got to buy in a particular market, and Deputy Good objects to the conditions of that market being inquired into. To put it mildly, I do not think that is "playing the game." He talks about the farmers, I do not come here, by any means, as an advocate of the farmers, but I think everybody knows their position to-day. So far as "cornering" is concerned, in the particular county from which I come many of the farmers, so far from "cornering," would be glad to get the price they were offered at the beginning of the season. He said that, supposing we admitted for a moment that it was "cornering," that that is known as good business. Deputy Good objects to men striking. He holds up his hands in holy horror if men at any time strike against what they regard as an unfair wage.

Is that a fair interpretation of my attitude?

I suggest that any body acting in this manner are striking in another way, and what is good for one section of the community ought not to be bad for the other. Deputy Morrissey and Deputy Johnson have already pointed out the great variation there is in the price of bread in this country. Deputy Morrissey reminded Deputy Hewat, when he was speaking, that the price of the loaf in England was 3d. or 4d. cheaper per four pound than it was in this country. Deputy Good made answer that that was due to the difference in wages between the two countries.

Again I did not say that that was my opinion. I said that some people might say that that was the case.

I think Deputy Hewat's statement was very definite. Certain evidence was tendered recently by employers in the milling trade and the baking trade on this question of costs. They established, very definitely and on very clear-cut lines, that from the time the wheat leaves the ship until the bread is delivered at the consumer's house—that includes unloading, loading, carting, milling and baking—the whole cost of labour is 34 per cent. of the retail price. I think Deputy Hewat will agree that that is not an extraordinarily high percentage. I think he would agree, too, if this whole question of the baking of bread were gone into, that if we could not get down to the London level, we certainly ought not to be as high as we are at present.

Would Deputy Corish say what is the London level, because I understand that there is as much variation in the price of bread in London as there is between the price of bread in London and Dublin?

So far as we can find out it is 9d. for a 4lb. loaf. I have not seen anything to the contrary. As I said before, I hope that the Committee will have the desired effect. All over the country to-day there is an opinion that there is profiteering and overcharging. The tendency is for wages to be reduced, and when suggestions come from employers that wages should be reduced, people naturally look for a reduction in the prices of commodities which these employers manufacture. That hope is, however, never realised. Even if this Committee is able to prove that there is no profiteering it will have done something and will lead to what is badly needed in the country—contentment.

Perhaps Deputy Corish will tell us what is profiteering?

To my mind profiteering means overcharging, or making profits which would not be warranted.

Charging over what? Where is your standard?

It is very hard to arrive at a standard.

That, however, I take it, would be the business of the Committee.

Would you take the prewar levels as the standard?

I know where the Deputy is trying to lead me.

I welcome this motion. I believe it is time to tackle this question of profiteering. I do not think that there can be any question as to profiteering. We know that prices are soaring and that the cost of living is still going up. I would suggest that one practical method for effecting reductions would be to give the tribunal power to publish any glaring case of profiteering that comes before them, and to have the facts posted up outside the Gárda barracks and Post Offices so that people could see the way in which they are being fleeced. I think that would be a more effective way to deal with that evil than anything else. In some cases there is a difference of from 4d. to 6d. per lb. in the price of butter in one street. Surely there must be profiteering there. What we want to get is a sound public opinion which will put an end to this and give the workers a chance of living. I think the Minister should give the tribunal power to expose glaring cases of profiteering.

Has the Deputy taken into consideration the quality of the butter as compared with the price, and if there was no difference in quality why did not people flock into the shop where the price was 4d. less?

In some cases the higher price butter is of inferior quality. The worker very often has credit in a shop and he is bound to that shop, and they can give him anything they like.

In answer to Deputy Hewat, I may say that I can give him an instance which came to my notice no later than to-day. I was passing through a market where turkeys were on sale, and I found that the price in the case of one firm was 1/8 a lb., and, for an exactly similar turkey, the price in the case of another firm was 1/4 a lb. That, I think, is a clear-cut example.

I do not think that the Deputy realises the position. If it was so plain that there was a difference of 4d. per lb. in the price of similar turkeys, why would "mugs" pay 1/8 per lb. where they could get the same quality for 1/4?

Mr. DOYLE

You asked for an example and I gave you one.

To convince me, you would really want to produce the two turkeys.

Mr. DOYLE

To my mind, both were of equal weight, and I pretend to be some judge of a turkey.

I hope the Minister will adopt my suggestion, as it would put a stop to a lot of profiteering. As to the holding up of farm produce, perhaps Deputy Hewat would practice some of the doctrines which he preaches to farmers and not hold up his supplies of coal. If he did he would be doing good to the community during this cold weather. In many cases the better quality of coal is held up in order to sell inferior cargoes at high prices.

I would be very glad to get information on the subject from the Deputy.

I thought that the debate which was about to ensue on this motion would have given some direction to the tribunal as to the line it might follow, but I am afraid when the tribunal get the report of this debate they will be more mystified than ever. Deputy Cooper complained that there was no explicit power of inquiring into wholesale prices. I think, however, that that is contained in the last three lines of the resolution. A great many other Deputies complained that the resolution is too wide and that it should be limited. On that point I may say that I thought it was better to draft the resolution widely and let the tribunal then set its own course. If, as Deputy Johnson seems to imagine, the Committee is going to be a collection of playboys, who will try to see in what way they best can bring the tribunal into ridicule, they might behave in the way he indicates. The tribunal may come together solemnly and say that they are given a wide field and the best way to cover it is to take certain articles at haphazard. I would prefer to leave that to the people on the tribunal, as I do not want to bind them too hard. They may, perhaps, take one or two articles. They may have to call evidence to see which article offers the best prospect of reduction in price. It is open to the Committee under this widely drafted resolution to do that, and it leaves room for them to behave as Deputy Johnson mentioned. Deputy Johnson refers to the words "urgent" and "definite," and complains that this matter is only now described as urgent. I am not saying that it was not urgent six months ago. It might have been quite as urgent six months or a year ago, but people are now suddenly galvanised into believing—I trust their hopes will be realised—that the Food Commission set up on the other side is going to achieve good results. Owing to that fact, a demand was made here which was not made some time ago. The fact, however, that the matters over which the scope of the Committee will range are many and varied does not take away from the fact that this is urgent and definite, and it will be made more definite by the choice of suitable persons on the Committee. I am not arguing that people coming together to make this a farce could not play havoc with the whole suggestion, but I do not believe that they are going to act in that way. I will therefore give them that freedom within which they can properly set their course and bring about some achievement.

I take it that the Minister has in mind other Commissions with wide terms of reference which found it difficult to bring their inquiry to a satisfactory conclusion because of the extent of the terms of reference and the divergency of views?

I admit that that is a danger, but I am only balancing the freedom as against possible results. If there appears to be difficulty in coming to definite conclusions it will be for the Dáil and Seanad to see that they get more explicit terms of reference. Deputy Cooper urges that we should, for instance, make mention of wholesale prices, but if you mention wholesale prices distinctly you might have the committee saying that they will inquire first into wholesale prices. There might then be the difficulty which Deputy Johnson suggests. There might be a range of articles which might be described as articles of general consumption but the producers of which are outside this country, so that the committee could not go further and could not get at the price received by the producers. They could not get costings of factories abroad, and therefore they must rule out certain articles. The committee might say in their report that owing to the producers being outside the country they had to start at the point where the article arrived at the quayside. They might then discover some unconscionable addition to the price after the article arrived. I have no desire to abide rigidly by the terms of the resolution. If Deputies think it would be better to insert the word "wholesale" as well as "retail" let that be done. I urge that it is not directing attention in the direction we want, especially having regard to the fact that if we want to enquire into the other matter there is leave in the last three lines to do so.

Would the Minister consider adding after the word "retail,""and if necessary wholesale"?

I am quite agreeable to do that if the House desires, but there are two parties apparently in the House in this matter. One says the resolution is far too wide and it ought to be limited, and the other party states it is too limited and needs enlargement. If there is any accommodation or agreement between the two sets of people, and some other formula is evolved, I am ready to receive it. Deputy Major Bryan Cooper raised the point as to the instrument, and there was a point raised by Deputy Heffernan as to the machinery under this Act. The Act states:—

Where it has been resolved by both Houses of Parliament that it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter described in the resolution as of urgent public importance, and when in pursuance of the resolution the tribunal is appointed for the purpose, the instrument by which the tribunal is appointed or any instrument supplemental thereto may provide that this Act shall apply.

If the resolution meets with the approval of the Dáil and Seanad there has to be an instrument, a document appointing the tribunal. That instrument giving the names of those on the tribunal may contain a statement that this Act shall apply to that tribunal. If the Act is made applicable to the tribunal by the instrument of appointment the following powers are given to the tribunal:—

The tribunal shall have all such powers, rights and privileges as are vested in the High Court ... on the occasion of an action in respect of the following matters:—

(a) The enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation, or otherwise;

(b) The compelling the production of documents;

(c) Subject to rules of court, the issuing of a commission or request to examine witnesses abroad.

It says further:—

If any person on being duly summoned as a witness before a tribunal makes default in attending, or being in attendance as a witness refuses to take an oath legally required by the tribunal to be taken, or to produce any document in his power or control legally required by the tribunal to be produced by him, or to answer any question to which the tribunal may legally require an answer—

and there is set out that steps may be taken for the punishment of that person in like manner as if he had been guilty of contempt of court. I think that ought to answer Deputy Heffernan's question as to the enforcement of witnesses, and the production of documents. A question was raised with regard to income tax accounts that I cannot answer. I know the High Court has certain powers with regard to inquiries into income tax. Whether an income tax official may be brought before a court I cannot say.

Is the Minister aware that power did exist in England to bring income tax officials before the courts, and that abstracts of accounts were submitted by these officials to courts?

I am aware that the difficulty the Food Council found themselves in on the other side was that they could not have produced certain documents they required. They afterwards got these powers.

The first report of the Royal Commission on Food Prices contains the following with regard to the relation of profit to the turnover in the food trades:—

"We have been fortunate in obtaining from the Board of Inland Revenue certain evidence of a general statistical character which throws interesting light on the relation of profit to turnover in the wholesale and retail distribution of food."

Evidence was given by an official of the Inland Revenue Department, and I presume a similar official could be summoned to give evidence here.

I presume that is so. The Food Council in England were met by a refusal from bakers to produce books for inspection. They got over the difficulty by threatening to publish the names of the people on a white list. However, that is the Act under which it is proposed this tribunal should act. That gives certain powers; all of these powers will be given to the tribunal, and it seems that they are quite sufficient to get information required in this matter. A further section in the Act states that the tribunal has power to exclude the public if it thinks fit when certain evidence is being given—that is, to keep certain information from the public or people who might make an unfair use of it.

The Commissioners themselves, without meaning it, may make an unfair use of it.

That had all been considered presumably when the Act was passed. I am moving to avail of that Act, and give the tribunal all the powers it gives them. With regard to the remark about the production of books, books could be ordered for production under this Act, and that power is given to the tribunal. Deputy Major Bryan Cooper referred to the composition of the tribunal, and he spoke of having a chartered accountant on it, and some representative of labour. Deputy Heffernan also moved that there should be some representative of the farming community. The sort of tribunal I had in my mind was one of which the chairman must necessarily be a lawyer; there should then be on the committee one or two people who might be described as professional economists—I should say "professor of economy" are not words that have fallen into disrepute lately—and I would like to put on it a representative of the large retail trade. That person might have to be changed according to the particular trade which was being inquired into. There should also be a representative of Labour, and a representative, say, of the farmers' and co-operative societies. I hope what I am going to say will not be considered too personal, but, taking the two speeches, I would like to see Deputy Bryan Cooper have his persuasive eloquence exercised on the committee, but I would not like to have Deputy Johnson appearing on the committee for fear he might deal with articles at haphazard, and have all those wanderings that might occur.

You need not have any fear.

I think that would be a proper kind of tribunal, with the addition of two or three people, either because of their interest in this matter, or because of some special qualification which individuals might have, rendering them suitable to serve on such a tribunal. I had intended not to put a chartered accountant on the tribunal as a member, but rather to have him associated with the tribunal in a paid capacity, so that he could examine in a professional way any documents or books that may be submitted.

What about representatives of the Chamber of Commerce?

I would suggest that the farming community have a right to ask for more than one representative, not because of their numbers, but because they are entitled to that representation by reason of their dual capacity as producers and consumers.

I would suggest we ought to put a wholesale representative also on the committee. He could give valuable information.

I cannot imagine putting anybody on this tribunal who will not have a dual capacity, because everybody will be a consumer. Suggestions have been made with regard to the tribunal. I have not moved towards asking anybody to act on the tribunal as this resolution had not gone through. I think it was Deputy Johnson who pleaded that the tribunal should be small. I would rather have it small. If we are to have representatives of the wholesale and retail trades, of Labour, farmers, and the Chambers of Commerce, this tribunal may get unwieldy, but there is nothing definite about the forming of the tribunal. I have merely thrown out what was in my mind. Deputy Johnson has urged that a permanent committee, or tribunal would be better. It may come to that, but I think after all the criticism we have been subjected to with regard to adding to the cost of the Department, or adding to the expenditure of the Government, that it would be better to try the methods proposed where the expenditure is strictly limited, and if it seems to offer good results we might move towards appointing a permanent commission which would examine all such matters as the price of commodities coming from abroad and the prices retail here. I do not by any means say that a permanent commission is entirely ruled out, but I do not think there is any case made for it at the moment. I think rather that the lukewarm reception given to this proposal in some quarters of the House is a sign that possibly certain Deputies here would consider it waste to spend any money at all upon this Commission, and if that be so I can imagine the volume of protest there would be if we were to set up a permanent committee with, presumably, paid officials to go along this useless sort of path.

It might be cheaper.

Well I think it is a matter of one calculation against the other. I think at the moment it is better to see what can be got from this; if sufficient evidence can be brought before the tribunal to make people believe that there is some value in having a tribunal such as is suggested here, or some tribunal like it, set up as a permanency. I prefer not to go into the expense of a permanent tribunal, even though it might be similar to this, before its worth has been shown. Deputy Sir James Craig, Deputy Doyle and Deputy Colohan have urged that it is possible in the same street to see a great difference of price with regard to the same article. I think the discussion that took place after the statements made by these Deputies went to show how difficult it is to determine that it was the same article and of the same quality, and in the end you are faced with this difficulty; what is one to do or should one do anything for people who, say, see two turkeys, exactly the same type of bird, one at 1/8 per lb. and the other at 1/4, and then proceed to buy the bird at 1/8 per lb.? I do not know if anything really should be done for people of that sort. It reminds me of the old description in the American story-books of the type that is called a "sucker" in the slang of that country. One man describes himself as being so much of that type that if he did business with an automatic machine he would be fooled. If we have a considerable number of people of that type in this country, the sooner some of us go into the distributing business the better, because apparently there is money to be made where you have such an enormous number of foolish people about. Deputy Lyons, I think, suggested having local committees established, and Deputy Colohan suggested that the Gárda Síochána might be made use of.

Yes, in glaring cases.

Deputy Lyons suggested that the committees in each town should have some authority to punish people for what he called profiteering. I asked him what was profiteering, and was given the answer "overcharging." Overcharging is equally as vague a synonym, if a synonym at all, as profiteering. As regards Deputy Colohan's suggestion on what standard are the Gárda to act when making an inquiry into the quality of certain goods, into the number of hands through which the article passes, or is there to be a rough and ready test that these articles cost so much and should be priced at so much?

If the Minister adopted my suggestion and put the words that I suggested into his motion, they would have the effect of reducing prices this very night. The prices would be reduced as soon as it became known throughout the country that words to the effect I suggested had been inserted in the motion. That would be an effective means of bringing down prices.

I do not know. I think the only effect would be that you would have a certain amount of publicity. As regards the suggestion made by Deputy Doyle, I have already shown that I do not take his object lesson as being one that could be too strictly regarded. Even taking what he said, and even if you have publicity given to the prices, one labelled at so much and the other at sixpence or four-pence per pound more, and that even to the expert eye of Deputy Doyle the two birds are of the same quality, yet apparently inasmuch as the higher priced article remained on sale and was being looked for, what is the good of publicity in those circumstances? We have to go a long way before we can get to certain standards as regards price and quality.

Would the Minister accept a case which I am about to quote as one that might be classed as profiteering? A farmer's wife goes into a country town and sells to the local shopkeeper a roll of butter at ninepence a pound. The shopkeeper retails the butter at one and sixpence or two shillings per pound. That is quite a common kind of occurrence.

That is one of the kind of matters that would come before this Committee of Inquiry, but how is that type of case, a glaring one of that kind, going to be tackled by the Gárda or the local authorities on the lines suggested by Deputies. First of all, they would have to make inquiries as to prices, and it would require a great deal of evidence to show in the case of an article bought at ninepence and retailed at two shillings, that there was not somewhere extortion, but it is conceivable that in the case of a retailer in a small town where there was a considerable number of retail shops, where competition was very severe and where the expense of keeping up a retail shop would be fairly high, that there could be made a case that the retail prices charged was not profiteering, even in the loose sense in which the word is used. I believe there was a proposal in France, but whether it actually became law or not I do not know, which seemed to go on the lines of setting up local committees and of giving local authorities power to act upon a standard which was to be fixed for a district, that is to say, fixed by some sort of a central authority. If this tribunal can do anything like that, and if it comes to any conclusion there may be some scope afterwards for the local authority or for the Gárda Síochána to act under it, but I think you must get evidence taken first to get a prima facie case made out with regard to excesses in the way of charges.

Is the Minister prepared to give local authorities permission to have committees formed within their own areas for the purpose of taking evidence?

I am not, and I do not know that I would have any power to do it. I could, I suppose, move for legislation for the purpose. What I am prepared to do now is to let this tribunal consider and report as to practical methods of effecting reductions. If the tribunal makes any recommendation of the sort referred to by Deputy Lyons, then we can have that considered and discussed here in the Dáil, to see whether the gain likely to result from the suggestion will outweigh any extra expense incurred in carrying the report of the Committee into effect.

The local committees set up by the British Government in 1919 were composed of honorary members. I do not think that committees formed by the county councils would require any expenses at all, and the only person you would have to pay would be the secretary.

Deputy Hewat put the point, and I stressed it, that if after hearing the evidence and spending a lot of time upon it we simply come to the conclusion that there is a question of too many distributors, what are you going to do? When I put that question, it leads to a certain dilemma but, at the same time, it clarifies matters. It may be that the whole system of distribution is wrong and that it will not rectify itself by what would be in other countries the ordinary pressure exersised by keen consumers seeing whether they can get a bit off the prices in one shop as compared with another. And what I rather fear, in regard to this Committee, is that it may take a dive in a course where one does not quite see the end at the moment. It is possible that we may have to come to the fixing and controlling of prices which may lead to a sort of interference with articles coming in from outside. That may involve the setting up of a permanent Government Department with tremendous expenditure to tackle it and it might be a matter afterwards of balance to see whether the set-off likely in the way of reduction would be equated by the expenditure involved in the setting up of such a big Government Department. Deputy Hewat referred to the Commission in England. I think that the Commission in England is what led to the demand, at this period, for this tribunal to be set up here, and in response to that demand I am going to set up a tribunal. I am not sure that the Commission in England has done all that the people who are so enthusiastic about it say it has done. It did bring down the price of flour and the price of bread, and then the price of flour and the price of bread went up again, and I wonder whether people are any better off at this moment.

Does the Minister suggest that that is a case of cause and effect? Does he suggest that the reduction in the price of bread inevitably and automatically led to an increased demand for flour, or are there not any other causes that lead to an increase in the price of wheat and in the price of flour?

Undoubtedly there are other causes. I am simply putting it as a matter of fact that the food council on the other side sat, after the Royal Commission on prices had issued a report on a particular date, and the price of bread was reduced. Now, whether it was through the Food Council, or not, I am not going to say, but, having got to the point where the price of bread was reduced, there came about another fluctuation, and the price of bread went up again, and the price of bread now is as high as it was at the time when the food council began to sit.

It is not lower in England now than it was in Dublin a month ago before the rise in the price of flour?

I think that that is so, but people would be rash to conclude from that fact alone that there is profiteering here, or at least undue profit made here. They must remember that the cost of distribution must be considered here also.

An inquiry into that would be interesting in itself.

I think so. One result will be that this Commission will teach people to know that the thing is not so simple as they imagine.

That evidence about bread prices was all given before the Fiscal Commission.

Take the question of publicity, and the showing up of people. I think there was a great indictment framed in the report of the committee on which Deputy Hewat and Deputy Sir James Craig sat, of one particular trade, but at the same time it did not bring down the cost of the article that they were retailing by one farthing. That committee, through no fault of its own, did not achieve anything, and I do not think it is fair to compare it with the tribunal that I am now setting up. That committee had not power to call for witnesses or to authorise the production of books and documents. It was very limited in its scope, but the information that was brought before it produced very damning statements with regard to one trade, but, as I say, it did not bring down the retail price in that trade by one farthing. I am keeping the resolution as it stands. If Deputy Cooper is moving to put in after the word "prices" in line 5 the words "wholesale prices if necessary," I am prepared to accept that.

I suggest that, to cover that point, it would be necessary to add the words "prices paid by importers." I take it that is what Deputy Cooper has in mind. There are wholesalers who only deal with home produce and others who deal almost entirely with imported goods.

Will the Minister say what he hopes to derive from the passage of this resolution in view of the fact that he has torn it to shreds?

I have not. I say it would be very useful in getting a considerable amount of information, and I do not despair of getting from this tribunal some indication as to a practical method for a reduction in prices. All I say is that I have not the very wild hopes that I am afraid a great many people have in these matters. I think it will do an immense amount of good in showing up the complexity of this problem.

The Minister referred to the constitution of the tribunal, and he indicated some lines to go on. I would like to give the benefit of the experience I gained on the Committee on Food Prices on which I sat. One of the great objections some of the trades made to giving information to that Commission was the fact that some of the members of the Commission were in the same line of business—not directly in the same line perhaps—as themselves. Now, the Minister says he is going to give the co-operative system representation. It was in connection with the co-operative representation on that Committee that the principal objection was raised, and in other directions too. That shows the complexity in the organising of the Commission.

I think Deputy Johnson's point could be met by adding the words "or importers" after the word "producer" in the second last line.

The amendment then is to add in line 5 after the words "retail prices" the words "wholesale prices if necessary," and further to amend the resolution by putting in in the second last line, after the word "producer," the word "or importers."

I think there is agreement in the acceptance of these amendments.

I propose that these amendments be accepted.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Resolution, as amended, put and agreed to.
Top
Share