I move the Second Reading. The purpose of this Bill is to establish machinery for the examination of complaints that excessive prices are being charged, either retail or wholesale, for articles of common necessity and for certain other articles, and to enable action to be taken if these complaints are found to be justified. The machinery established by the Bill is, I think, easily understandable. In the first place there will be a body which will be known as the Prices Commission. It will be a permanent body with certain defined powers and composed of five members, of whom two may be women and of whom one shall be nominated after consultation with the Minister for Agriculture and shall be representative of agricultural interests.
Financial Resolutions. - Control of Prices Bill—Second Stage.
Two must be women?
Yes, two must be women. The Commission thus established will have at its disposal whatever staff is necessary for its work and will be empowered to make regulations concerning its procedure. It will also have conferred upon it powers vested in the High Court for the summoning of witnesses, administering of oaths and the procuring of evidence. The Secretary of the Commission will be a person who will be styled the Controller of Prices, and who, apart from his function as Secretary of the Commission, will have certain other defined duties and powers set out in the Bill. As far as the Commission is concerned it is intended that whenever a complaint is submitted to it by any person or whenever the Minister requests the Commission to examine the prices charged, either retail or wholesale, for a particular commodity of common consumption, either generally or in specified areas, that Commission will have power and will have the duty of carrying out the necessary investigation.
That part of the Commission's work relates to the investigation of the general price levels. It will consider whether the prices charged for a particular commodity in the whole of the Saorstát or any particular area are excessive or otherwise. If as a result of their investigations they come to the conclusion that the prices were unduly high they may serve notice to that effect upon the parties concerned, and it is intended they should take whatever action they consider necessary by negotiation to effect a reduction in these prices. If, however, they fail in their efforts to secure a reduction in prices by these means they are required to report to the Minister setting out all the facts ascertained by them in relation to the prices, the reasons why they are unduly high, their opinion as to what the proper level of prices should be and also their opinion as to the best method of securing a reduction in the prices. But behind all that lies the power conferred upon the Minister upon a recommendation of the Commission to, in the last resort, fix the maximum price of the articles specified by order and to make that maximum price compulsory on all those engaged in the sale of the article in question either retail or wholesale as the case may be. I think that most Deputies will admit that in any price investigation there are two conditions which are essential to the success of the investigation. One is that the investigating body must have power to compel attendance of witnesses and get whatever evidence they require. We have conferred that power upon the Commission. They must have some authority in the last resort to fix the maximum price.
In the absence of either of these powers the investigations of the Committee will be of little value, and it would be possible for those who are guilty of charging excessive prices for articles of common necessity to flout the authority of the Commission. A part altogether from the fact that the general level of prices of particular commodities may be too high in the Saorstát or in any particular areas there is also reason to believe and numerous complaints have been received that particular retailers and particular wholesalers sell to particular individuals articles of common necessity occasionally at excessive prices. We have got to distinguish between a general price which is too high and the particular price charged by a retailer to a customer which is too high, because the retailer thinks he can get away with it on that particular occasion, even though the next customer comes into the shop and gets the same article at a low price.
For the first problem, the problem of the general prices level we have established a Commission. It is the function of the Commission to investigate complaints in that regard, and to take whatever action is necessary, and report to the Minister on its findings, and when we come down to deal not with general price levels but particular prices charged on particular occasions, we have got to get another type of machine, and it is here that the control of prices comes in. Now we were anxious in drafting this legislation to devise a method by which we could deal with the profiteer—the profiteering shop-keeper—while at the same time we would not place an undue hardship upon or create new difficulties for the genuine and honest trader. I think we have devised such a method; the procedure to be followed under Part 4 of the Bill is that a person who has been charged, or from whom there has been demanded a price for a commodity which he believes to be excessive, may make a complaint to the Controller of Prices in the manner set out in Section 27 of the Bill.
When the Controller gets that complaint he may, if he considers it frivolous, disregard it entirely or proceed to carry out an investigation. It is clear, of course, that if the article in respect of which a complaint has been made in this case is an article in respect of which a Price Fixing Order has already been made in consequence of a report from the Commission that the proper course to take in such circumstances would be to prosecute the offender for a breach of that Order. Consequently, if the Controller on getting a complaint finds that it relates to an article in respect of which a Price Fixing Order has already been made, he proceeds no further with the matter. There are two grounds therefore on which the Controller may disregard the complaint. One is that in his opinion it is frivolous; the second is that it relates to an article for which a Price Fixing Order has already been made. If he does not disregard the complaint on either of those grounds and gives it an investigation, he uses for this purpose an inspector appointed under the Act. The inspector, by personal contact with the complainant and with the shopkeeper against whom the complaint is made, endeavours to ascertain all the facts, and his efforts are enforced by certain powers conferred upon him.
Section 29 (3) enables a person who refuses to give information to an inspector, in relation to a matter which is being investigated, to be punished. If, when the inspector has reported to the Controller, the Controller is of opinion that an excessive price has in fact been charged, the Controller sends to the seller a notice to that effect, telling him that in his opinion he has charged an excessive price for this particular article, including the price which in the opinion of the Controller would have been a fair price for the article, and requiring the seller to give to the Controller an undertaking in writing not to charge an excessive price for that article again, and if a sale has taken place to refund to the purchaser the amount by which the purchaser was overcharged. If the seller does that, if he refunds the amount of the overcharge and gives an undertaking not to overcharge in future, the matter drops. If the seller, however, refuses to give the undertaking or to act in accordance with the wishes of the Controller in that respect the Controller issues a certificate which is called "A Price (Retail) Certificate" or "A Price (Wholesale) Certificate" as the case may be, in which is set out what, in the opinion of the Controller, would be a reasonable price to be charged for that article in the particular district in which the sale took place. A copy of that certificate is sent to the shopkeeper or to the wholesaler and the terms of it are published in a newspaper circulated in that district. If, subsequent to the issue of the certificate, and while the certificate is in force, the same seller again commits the same offence—the offence of charging an excessive price for that particular article—he then becomes liable to prosecution. It is clear, therefore, that there are three steps. If a sale has taken place at what in the opinion of the purchaser is an excessive price the purchaser makes a complaint to the Controller and the Controller then proceeds, in accordance with this Act, through the three processes I have mentioned.
First of all he investigates the complaint. If he finds that the complaint is well founded he notifies the seller to that effect, requires him to refund the amount of the overcharge and to give an undertaking not to overcharge in future. If the seller agrees to that course the matter ends. If the seller does not agree to that course a certificate is issued by the Controller and published in the Press, to the effect that this particular person on a particular occasion sold a particular article at a price which was in excess of the reasonable price, and including what in the opinion of the Controller the reasonable price should have been. That is an attempt to bring the force of public opinion to bear upon the shopkeeper in question, and induce him to charge a reasonable price as a result of the publicity given to his action. If he fails to do that, if despite the publication of the certificate and the representations of the Controller he persists in charging for the particular article a price which is excessive, he becomes liable to prosecution and, in certain circumstances at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment. Now the third purpose of this Bill is set out in Part V. I have explained that the function of the Commission is to investigate complaints concerning the general level of prices for particular commodities, either the retail or the wholesale price, in the whole of the Saorstat or in particular areas. I have explained that the purpose of the Controller is to exercise control over the particular prices charged in particular places in any part of the Saorstát. There is a third type of investigation that is necessary and that is in relation to manufacturers' prices for protected commodities. We have had discussions here from time to time—we had them only this afternoon—as to the effect of tariffs on prices. We have had allegations made that the imposition of tariffs always leads to a rise in prices. We have had our experience and there are facts and figures available to show that, in particular cases at any rate, the imposition of a tariff had the opposite effect, but be that as it may, there is no doubt that in this country, because of the smaller number of industrial units which we have, it is always possible for those industrialists who enjoy the benefit of a protective tariff to combine amongst themselves to exploit the market. I do not suggest that any evidence that such has happened to any extent is available.
In one or two cases there are circumstances which would indicate to me that the necessity for getting this Bill through quickly exists, because the information available is such that I would like to have it investigated. Clearly there is a danger there, and clearly it is a danger against which we must have some power of taking care of ourselves other than the very drastic power of destroying the market. At the present time if we found a group of manufacturers combining to exploit the market we have only one weapon against them and that is the removal of the tariff, which would undoubtedly have serious consequences for those manufacturers, but would also have very serious consequences for the large number of workers employed by them, who are not guilty of the attempted profiteering. This Bill is designed to give us that other weapon. Part V. of the Bill empowers the Minister at any time to require the Commission to carry out an investigation into the manufacturers' prices for a particular protected commodity, and enables the Commission on its own initiative to carry out on its own behalf a continuous investigation into the prices charged in respect of protected commodities. The intention is that there should be this continuous investigation into the prices of protected articles, and that from time to time the Commission would report to the Minister on all the articles set out in Section 33. "(b) The movements of the prices of such commodity over a specified period; (c) whether in the opinion of the Commission such prices are or are not unreasonably high, together with the reasons for such opinion; (d) their opinion as to whether such prices are influenced by any agreement or combination for interfering with free competition." And, if the Commission are of opinion that unreasonably high prices have been charged, they report, as in the previous case, what a reasonable price would be and the steps to be taken to secure it, and whether, in the last resort, a price-fixing order should be made. In this case, as in other cases, if no other method can be found of securing a reasonable level of price, there is power conferred on the Minister to make a price-fixing order. I am inclined to think that, when the present circumstances, which are, to some extent, abnormal, in so far as the economic policy of the country is undergoing a period of transition and a number of new tariffs have come into operation in a short period, have passed, one of the main functions of this Commission will be in relation to the sections of this Bill which deal with the investigation of the prices of protected articles. It is, however, desirable that we should have, at all times, machinery available for examining complaints in relation to articles and power to deal with those responsible for profiteering, in the event of the complaints being found to be justified. That is why we recommend this Bill.
It is, I think, quite clear that there is necessity for this legislation. Even if all the complaints which have been made from time to time, made either in letters to my Department or voiced here in this Dáil, are found on examination to be without justification, it is a good thing, from the point of view of maintaining public confidence, that an investigation should be made and that some body with the powers to carry out that investigation should exist. That is the main justification for the Bill. We think that in a modern State, and, particularly, in a State in which a protective policy is in operation, some such machinery should exist.
I am not really in a position to offer any solid opinion as to whether there is real foundation for some of the complaints which have been made. In so far as we have been able to carry out investigations, we have found that undoubtedly in a number of cases particular shop-keepers did charge excessive prices. I do not say that we have found that the general level of prices has been unduly high. I mention the fact that there are one or two of the protected industries in respect of which I would like very much to see the position examined, because, even though we are unable to say that excessive prices have been charged, I am, nevertheless, not satisfied with the information in my possession which goes to show that excessive prices are not being charged, and I would like to see some body with power to compel the production of evidence going into the matter. It is possible that they will find that my suspicions—if I might use even so strong a term as that—are completely without justification, but, in the event of their finding the reverse to be the case, I want to have the facts clearly stated and, in the last resort, power to deal with the matter.
The main reason why the Bill has urgency, however, arises from the fact that there is undoubtedly need for the exercise of the powers which it is proposed to confer on the controller under this Bill. It is undoubtedly the case that, here and there throughout the country, there are shopkeepers who trade on public ignorance in order to charge excessive prices for articles which are imported either free of duty, or subject to duty, or which are produced here by protected industries. Some very glaring examples were brought to my notice, and, although we had no power to procure evidence, and no power to take action if the evidence showed that profiteering was, in fact, taking place, such investigations as we have carried out, did undoubtedly show that profiteering was taking place. We have had glaring examples in which it was proved that shopkeepers actually removed the ticket that was affixed to an article by the manufacturer indicating the price at which that article was to be sold and substituting for it another ticket indicating a higher price and securing that higher price in particular cases until a complaint was made. Consequently, it is desirable that a controller should be appointed and that he should have these powers to investigate these cases in the manner I have indicated.
I will admit that it is not at all unlikely that the number of cases which may come to the controller for investigation may be few. That will be due to the fact that the very passage of the Bill, and the appointment of a controller with these powers, will in itself exercise a deterring effect on any profiteering instincts which individual shopkeepers may have. I would like to say this, that our experience has been that, in the majority of cases, profiteering is not taking place. So far as we have been able to discover, by far the majority of our shopkeepers are honest people who are trying merely to make a reasonable profit on the articles they have to sell, but, here and there in the country, in different towns and in different cities, there are undoubtedly people who take advantage of some special circumstances, or some special advantage possessed by them, in order to secure excessive prices, and we want to get at these people, and to induce them, in the first instance, if possible, to mend their ways, and, if they will not do that, to expose them to the public, and, if that is not sufficient, to put them in jail where some of them should be.
Part 6 of the Bill is merely consequential on the other provisions. It is designed to secure that where an employer is prosecuted for an offence under the Bill, he can make a good defence to the charge if he establishes any of the things set out in paragraphs a, b, c. and d, or all of the things so set out, namely, that he used due diligence to prevent the commission of the acts alleged to constitute an offence; that the acts alleged to constitute such offence were not done by him personally; that the said acts were done without his consent, connivance or wilful default; and if he gives all necessary information to the officer investigating the matter. Similarly, if an employee is charged, it will be a good defence for him to show that he was acting in the employment of another person, and that the acts alleged to constitute such offence were committed by him in the course of and for the purpose of such employment, and that they were committed by him in obedience to the express orders of the employer. Section 38 deals with contracts. It is intended to secure that, where a price-fixing order comes into operation, during or immediately prior to the operation of a contract, the order shall be deemed not to operate in respect of the contract.
What section is that?
Section 38. The scope of the Bill, as at present defined, includes every commodity which is used for food, clothing, material for clothing or fuel, and, of course, under Part 5 of the Bill, protected commodities. It is provided, however, that the Executive Council may by order extend the Bill to include within the Schedule any other article in respect of which it is desired to have an investigation carried out, but, of course, such order has to be submitted to the Dáil, under sub-section 3 of Section 3. I have every confidence in recommending this Bill to the House, and I am quite sure that most Deputies will agree that there is necessity for legislation of this kind. I cannot imagine that any person could seriously argue that, if there is reason to believe that profiteering is taking place on the part of individual shop-keepers, or that excessive prices are being charged by wholesalers or manufacturers, we should not have power to deal with people of that kind. This Bill gives us that power. Such power did not exist before. The Prices Tribunal established in 1925 carried out elaborate investigations and reported. The making of this investigation had a good effect. The fact that the Prices Tribunal was in existence at the time had, during its period of existence, a deterring effect on any excessive prices being charged, but when the tribunal reported, and went out of existence, the moral effect it had created disappeared with it.
In the new circumstances that have been created I do not think any useful purpose could be served by appointing periodical temporary commissions of that kind, if we are going to ensure that profiteering of any kind is not going to operate in this country. We have to have a permanent commission, one with the powers proposed to be conferred on the commission appointed under this Bill. It may be that in the course of a year or two, or in five years, circumstances will change, and we may find ourselves in a position to repeal this legislation without incurring any danger. I hardly think that will arise so long as we are operating a protective policy, or so long as present circumstances continue. I think a necessary corollary to a protection policy is the introduction of legislation of this kind. Even if we were not operating a protective policy, and by reason of some of the complaints we have received, that individuals or organisations have been indulging in excessive profit taking, I think we should pass this legislation, and consequently I recommend the Bill to the Dáil.
Before the Minister finishes I would point out that he has told us a good deal about what is in the Bill and explained why he wants certain machinery in respect of Part V to correct the rather slobbery approach to the Minister's tariff policy, but he did not make any case for Parts I, II, III and IV. The Minister has told us what the machinery is to be. Will he tell us what is the reason for setting up that machinery?
I spent half an hour doing it.
The Minister did not say a single word about that.
I welcome this measure, and I think the Minister is to be commended for the attempt he has made to devise machinery to control prices in this country. There are parts of the Bill with which I do not agree. In the main, I agree with the principle, and I think that most people, whether consumers or traders, who want to make an honest profit, who do not want to profiteer, as it is commonly called, will also welcome the Bill and its machinery. We hear a lot of charges made loosely, both in this House and in the country, about profiteering. There might be, as the Minister stated, a case where there is profiteering, but it is very hard to define what profiteering is. I know where there were individual cases of overcharging. I am afraid that, very often when we talk about profiteering, the word is used, as we use many words in this country, in a very loose fashion. The Minister mentioned, and I agree with the statement so often made both inside and outside this House, that the natural corollary to a protection or tariff policy is price fixing, or the control of prices. No matter what the Minister may say we know, as a matter of fact, that when a tariff is put on, and particularly when you have very high tariffs as we have had in this country in recent months, the natural tendency is to increase prices to the highest point within the tariff. Therefore, if this House decides to increase the existing tariffs or to impose new tariffs, it is bound, in fairness to consumers, to devise some machinery to control the prices which will have to be paid by consumers. It seems to me that this measure is not going to settle matters. The trouble seems to me—and I am sure it appeals to every Deputy that we have too many distributors; that the country in that respect is economically lop-sided, as the number of people engaged in distribution is out of all proportion to the number of people engaged in production. The result is that the turnover of the retail distributor in city, town and village is very small, and we know that the smaller the turnover the higher the percentage of profit required. It seems to me that that is, perhaps, what is at the root of most of the allegations of profiteering, and that what at first sight appears to be profiteering or overcharging, on examination is found not to be profiteering in the ordinarily understood sense of the word.
As far as I am concerned I would like to see this House passing legislation to ensure that, whenever any person, just as the whim takes them, opens a shop, a position would be brought about where that person could not do so unless some proper authority was satisfied that there was a necessity for such a shop in order to meet the demands of the locality. Of course that policy could be carried too far. I do not want it to be carried to the point where a monopoly would be created, but that is a matter that could be guarded against. I do not agree with the Minister where he pointed out that if a retailer is caught, or if a purchaser gives information to the proper authority that there was overcharging, and if it was proved that a shopkeeper succeeded in getting a higher price than that to which he was entitled, he is "let off" provided he gives an undertaking not to offend again. I would not agree with that at all. In effect, that means that the dishonest trader can go on overcharging until he is caught, and then if he gives an undertaking that he will not do it again, no charge will be brought against him. By putting that provision into the Bill I think the Minister is simply playing with the whole problem. It seems to me that the greatest difficulty the Commission to control prices will have to contend with will be the apathy of the public—the apathy of the consumers—and that it will be found even where there was overcharging—perhaps gross overcharging— while the consumers will grumble and grouse, they will be very slow to come forward to give evidence. That was the experience of the Food Prices Tribunal which was set up by the late Government. The members of that Tribunal travelled over the Free State and invited the public to come forward and give evidence. In their report I think the Tribunal stated that there was overcharging but that they could not get people to come forward to give evidence. I am afraid the Minister will find that while people will grumble locally about overcharging and profiteering they will be very slow to come forward with evidence.
I would like to refer to Part VI of the Bill. The Minister told us that it will be a good defence for the trader if he can show that the offence was not committed by himself. I object very strongly to that provision. We have too much of that kind of business where, when an employer or trader is charged with an offence, he throws the onus on the employee, and the employee, if he is to retain his position, must shoulder the blame. Of course, we are told that it will be a good defence for the employee to show that he overcharged as a result of instructions from his employer, but we know —and particularly under present circumstances in the country with regard to employment—that the employee who makes that statement before the Commission or before the controller, will very soon find that his employer has no use for his services. Therefore, that is a section which I would like the Minister to consider carefully between now and the Report Stage. I realise, and I think we must all realise, that it is a very difficult matter to frame or to set up machinery that will deal adequately with this very difficult and complex matter, and that no matter what machinery you may set up it will be largely dependent for its success on the co-operation you are going to receive from the public and, in particular, from the consumer. It seems to me that some such machinery is necessary, and I am only sorry that this machinery, or machinery somewhat similar to it, was not introduced before this. Perhaps it is more urgent and more necessary now than ever. I believe that it is more urgent and necessary now. I believe that it is necessary over and above all others for the protection of the poor, particularly because the heaviest tariffs, the tariffs which will fall most heavily on the poor people, have been imposed during the lifetime of the present Government. We know of many cases where articles costing a penny have cost threepence as a result of the tariff. We know that in many cases the retailer is not satisfied to add the amount of the tariff to the pre-tariff price, but that he adds considerably more, and we know that in the end the persons who suffer most by these matters are the very poor.
We know also that the greatest profiteering, in so far as there is profiteering, is inflicted upon the very poor. They have to buy in very small quantities, and the smaller the quantities in which they are compelled to buy the larger and heavier the price falls on them. I would ask the Minister, therefore, to pay particular attention to that aspect of the case, and if he does, and if the body set up under this Bill get the co-operation which they are entitled to get from the consuming public, it will do a great deal of good. I welcome the Bill, and I believe it will be welcomed by the consuming public of the country, and by the ordinary decent trader in the country who does not expect to get an extravagant profit for his business.
This is the most extraordinary Bill that I ever listened to, introduced into this House. It is a Bill introduced without a scintilla of evidence to support it. We have been listening for quite a period of time to charges of profiteering being made against the commercial community. Here in this House when this Bill is being introduced, the first thing that anybody interested in the general welfare of the country expects is at least a putting forward of some evidence to support these wild charges that have been made in the country. Deputy Morrissey, belonging to the Labour Party, referred to profiteering and by the very nature of his speech showed that he knew nothing at all about it. The Minister, in introducing the Bill, also referred to profiteering, and wound up by saying that his Department had received quite a number of complaints, that these complaints had not been inquired into, that he did not know in essence whether they were true or false, and on the face of that evidence the country is treated to this Bill—treated to a Bill for the fixation of prices. There is not a word at all about the fixation of prices for labour or about the charges that labour involves in the cost of materials. Anybody who has read the report of the Commission set up to inquire into the profiteering charges made against the business community in this country must have been forcibly struck with the absolute injustice of introducing a measure of this kind into this House, fixing the retail and the wholesale prices for commodities while those people who made these commodities, especially the manufacturers of foodstuffs, such as the bakers and so on, can charge a price for their labour without any let or hindrance from the State.
If we are going to have a Bill of this kind introduced, let us be fair to all sections of the community. Let us deal with labour just in the same way as we deal with the distributors of the commodities with which this Bill is intended to deal. It is quite clear to the Minister that there is justification for this Bill, because a manufacturer's price ticket has been removed off the article to be sold. I had an idea that the Minister for Industry and Commerce had some training as a business man. I want to say this—that if in every instance where the price that a manufacturer marks upon an article for the retail price at which it was to be sold, if it were not sold at that price to please the manufacturer, what would it amount to in essence when the commercial community were in business for the benefit of the manufacturer and not for the community. The idea that the removal of a price ticket was profiteering shows complete and absolute ignorance of the subject on which the Minister held forth for the past half hour. This is a most important departure with private enterprise. For years before we were born—for centuries one might say—this country has been well served by the distributing public and the distributing public is one of the poorest sections of the community if one analyses their actual financial position to-day. Did any of the members read this 1926 Report and realise that in that Report it was estimated that there were 44,000 retailers in the Irish Free State, and only something like 10,000 of these were able to pay income-tax? Is there any evidence of profiteering in the face of statements of that kind dealt with by the Commission set up to inquire into this subject? Is it not a fact that this particular section of the people are very poor? Is it not a well-known fact that the business community is one of the best subscribing communities to the State? If you take business premises they are rated at anything from four to five times that of the ordinary residential holding. Is it not a fact that an occupier of a business premises pays four or five times the amount of money to the State than a man living in residential holdings such as I have mentioned may pay, although the latter may have ten times the income? In Dublin to-day we realise the load that has been thrown upon the commercial community by the passage of the Dublin Poor Relief Bill. I think I might say accurately that at any rate, roughly speaking, almost 50 per cent. of the money for poor relief comes from the business premises of the business community. And these are the people taxed. It is only part and parcel of a general scheme to go further and deal further blows at the community.
Deputy Morrissey referred, a moment ago, to profiteering, and said it was difficult to give a description of profiteering, and that what might be called profiteering by some people, for example, was, in reality, not profiteering at all. Everyone in business knows that to be true. If we are to introduce a measure of this kind we must have evidence to justify its introduction, and before it passes into law. As I said, it is only part and parcel of a general plan evolving at the present time in the heads of the Government.
We know that a Commission has been established to inquire into the licensing of shops. I think, speaking without any animus, that it is almost a foregone conclusion, looking at the personnel of the Commission, that licensing of shops will be recommended as the result of the labours of the Commission. Looking at the personnel I only see the name of one businessman. If anybody knows anything about the matter surely he knows this is a business Commission, and surely it is in the interests of businessmen that they should seek to have a larger number of the representatives of their interests upon that Commission. I have met beneficent gentlemen who sit upon the bench and go to learned societies and discourse there upon shops, but I would like to put them into these business premises and ask them to make a living out of them. Then we would see what their views were worth. The whole essence of this thing can be summed up briefly. It is an attack by the Government upon the second line of trenches. The first attack was made upon the farming community. Now the commercial community are being attacked, and if the farming community and the commercial community are to be wiped out of existence and this scheme passes in addition to the licensing scheme of shops, there is no doubt that the commercial community will follow the way the farming community are going at the present time.
I read the evidence at the 1926 Commission. I would like to quote one statement made, with regard to various matters that came before that Commission. Mr. Johnstone, a Fellow of Trinity College, a most learned man—I had the pleasure of being one of his pupils at one time and I know his brain and ability—said this: "It is axiomatic that the State should interfere as little as possible with the management of business by the private citizen." But the first thing we get here is the introduction of this Bill for the fixation of prices to the individual, but having nothing whatever to do with the value of the commodities concerned. Another pleasant prospect we have to look forward to is the question of the sufficiency of shops. Deputy Morrissey referred to the fact that there were far too many shops in the Free State. No man in business will deny the truth of that statement. There are certainly far and away too many shops, but if there are numerous shops in the country, what portion of the people should get the benefit of the surplus? The general community. If I am told that numbers do not lead to competition, that the fact that there are a good number of shops engaged in various lines of business, and that I am told that does not lead to competition, I say God help the shopkeeper who has to deal with officials set up to administer an Act of this kind.
It is perfectly plain to-day that the circulation of money in this country was never smaller. It is a well-known fact that the business community in the Irish Free State, especially in Dublin, owing to the burden of taxation at the present time, are unable to meet their overhead charges and expenses. And we have now a Bill brought in for the fixation of prices and we are threatened, in addition, with a Bill for the licensing of shops. It is plain from the evidence in the Report of the Commission that one of the objects is to expedite the exit of influential businessmen as quickly as possible, and that these men will have to pay a license duty of £5 per shop upon their business premises and will provide, in that way, an income of £200,000 for the State. I think that when we have elicited this piece of important information set down in the Report of the Commission to deal with this particular subject, we have the true and real reason why this Bill is introduced. An income of £200,000 is to come to the State on the plan of this Bill as it stands. We are naïvely informed in further evidence given to the Commission that it is a simple matter to increase the sum of £5 per shop if the State desires such an increase. They can increase the £200,000 to £400,000 or £600,000 if they wish. That will be income to the State. The question I want to ask is this: Is that giving equitable treatment to the people who are distributing goods in this country? Are they not equally entitled to receive the same treatment at the hands of the State as other sections of the community? I have pointed out that there may be powers to reduce taxation if the taxation of the one is not undertaken at the expense of the other. I want to ask this question: If people are put out of business and thrown upon the labour market at the present moment, what means exist for them to find new means of employment? How are they to support themselves and their families if thrown upon the labour market at the present time?
Not by a robbing system, at any rate.
Mr. Byrne
Seeing that another subject matter is coming up for discussion at 8 o'clock, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Debate adjourned accordingly.