Vol. 44 No. 5
I move amendment 1:—
Section 2. In line 18, to insert after the word "duty" the words "or a commodity the importation of which into Saorstát Eireann is prohibited or restricted by law."
This is a necessary amendment. The expression "protected commodity" as defined in the Bill, as drafted, means a commodity of which the importation is restricted. This is largely a drafting amendment.
I cannot understand this being described as a drafting amendment. The Minister made the case, at least in part of his speech introducing this measure, that this was a natural corollary to a tariff policy. I take that to mean that he decided at last to do what Deputy Dillon appealed to him to do some time in the month of May, to let the cat out of the bag, and announce that tariffs mean an increase in prices. I think that that is the only interpretation his words—"natural corollary of a tariff policy"—can mean. When you take away the ordinary impact of competition from outside you have no way of checking that and, accordingly, you have to introduce these tariffs. Not only have we commodities which would be liable to duties on importation into the Saorstát, but you have them also prohibited or restricted by law. I thought that even the Ministry, which is between protection and prohibition, founded its theories on this—that by protection you protected a commodity which is in an infant state of production, and you tried by some artificial means such as this to check it, but that as regards prohibition you would only go for it when you were certain your home producers were able to meet the demand of the home consumer. This is much more than a drafting amendment and it indicates very clearly the mentality of the Ministry— that they are going to go for prohibition even if they have such circumstances as, for instance, obtains for the moment in regard to the shirt making industry where there is such definite over-production at home beyond the demand that there is not the rivalry of business in the ordinary way.
It is something more than a tariff policy. It is a corollary which is not natural to a prohibition policy, because if prohibition were going to operate in a sane and sensible way, it would only operate in such a way as to meet the home demand. If not, this is opening up a new vista to us. It opens up quite an amount of extra work under this Bill, and it opens up a very peculiar prospect for us with regard to what the Minister intends to do even though the home producer is not able to meet the entire demand at home. I suggest to the Minister to leave this out. Let us keep the control of prices for whatever it is worth on commodities that are subject to protection, but let us not have this check in the background upon which the Minister can lean by saying "Well, I will introduce complete prohibition," even though the manufacturer is not able to meet the home demand. It is going to be used by the Ministry in the future to make it easier for themselves to prohibit in cases where they dare not prohibit the importation if this did not exist.
The ordinary definition of a protected commodity is not that of the Deputy. One method of protection is by restricting importation, the most commonly adopted throughout Europe at the present time. This is in fact only a drafting amendment. It merely says to add after the word "duty" the words "or a commodity the importation of which into Saorstát Eireann is prohibited or restricted by law." It is designed to secure that there will not be a loophole in the event of certain contingencies arising in the future. Such a contingency arises at the moment in relation to particular commodities like flour. A Bill has just been passed which prohibits the importation of flour except subject to certain limits allowed. It is done by quantitative restriction. The intention definitely is to secure the operation of control, where necessary, in relation to a protected commodity no matter in what form that protection was applied. I deny that tariffs mean a rise in prices. Some tariffs mean a fall in prices. Some tariffs mean a rise and are put on for that purpose. In a country like ours, where the number of producers is definitely limited, there is always a possibility of profiteering. That is not a necessary result of a tariff policy—it is the result of the individuals concerned—and this Bill is designed to ensure that the interests of consumers will not be prejudiced in that way.
I am only objecting to the two words "prohibited or". The word "restricted" is enough, because you have got to get that in if you are to close all the gaps. I may take the example that the Minister has given—flour. It is true that the flour measure in its form appears to be a prohibition measure, and is sometimes talked of in that way. Everybody knows from the Minister's own statement before the House in the last session that it is not prohibition, nor will it be for many years to come, and there is no hope of it. It is prohibition with the loophole of a licence, because for a long time to come you will need to import certain quantities of flour. That is restriction, and that ought to be covered and will be covered if the word "prohibition" is left out. I want to know the set of circumstances in which the Minister thinks he will have to have control of prices in a commodity over which he thinks he will have to have complete prohibition. Will it ever advance to that position? I think it is clear to him that at the moment the home manufacturer can supply and more than supply the demand at home.
I cannot imagine a case in which there will be complete prohibition without the Minister being clearly and definitely assured that the capacity of the home manufacture is sufficient to meet the entire home demand. If that is capable of meeting it, then there is going to be no necessity for control of prices except in the one case of rings, and these can be got after in another way. Will the Minister give us an indication, even a possibility—I do not care how vague, how approximate, the estimate may be—of some commodity that he thinks he may hereafter find it necessary to prohibit, without there being some circumstances which would by themselves keep down prices regardless of this check? I cannot see them. I grant that this expression has to be enlarged so as to bring in a commodity the importation of which is restricted by law. You have a positive restriction of law, but goods may be imported under some system of licensing or quota. I really cannot see how this is required.
I suggest that the Deputy has been skirting along the border of irrelevancy, if he has not actually gone across it.
That is a matter for the Chair to decide.
I am suggesting it to the Chair. The question that arises is not whether we should prohibit the importation of a commodity at any time. Whether we are likely to do so or what the consequences will be, the whole question has relation to a commodity the importation of which is prohibited into the Saorstát, and which is correctly described as a protected commodity. I think it will be agreed that that is the point of the amendment.
On the Second Stage of this Bill I spoke at some length and the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the course of his reply said:
Deputy Dillon says that the alternative to this Bill is to publish the facts. What facts? Where are we going to get the facts? What has this Bill been introduced for? What is the function of the Commission to be established under this Bill but to get the facts and publish them?
I replied that I would not bother to answer that point. The Minister proceeded blandly to say that he did not know whether or not there was any profiteering at all. The one thing he was certain of was that tariffs did not raise the cost of living. Nevertheless, he moved a Financial Resolution here, when the people of the country are put to the pin of their collar to make ends meet, to provide money to pay a staff to inquire into an abuse the very existence of which he is not satisfied of. I did not wish to interrupt the Minister while he was winding up the debate on an earlier stage. Of course, if he has any grounds for believing that there is profiteering, or if he believes that some of his allies are apprehensive about profiteering, let him first establish the fact that there is evidence of it.
On a point of order, is it in order for a Deputy to make a Second Reading speech on the Committee Stage?
I will explain why I am bringing this question in. The Minister is seeking power in Section 3 to schedule any commodity which is by order of the Executive Council declared to be a scheduled commodity. On an earlier stage he asked certain questions to which I have referred and I suggest that under this section I may relevantly reply.
Reply to what?
Reply to the contention submitted by the Minister. I had certain suggestions to make to the Minister and these were rejected. I submit that the Minister's contention was not sound.
I submit that all this has nothing to do with the section.
It arises under the section in so far as the Minister claims the right to schedule any commodity he likes.
If the Deputy sets out to deal with what the Minister proposes to do under the section, that is the limit to which he can go.
I am dealing now with the power the Minister seeks to schedule any and every commodity for the purpose of ascertaining if there is profiteering in that commodity. I will point out that to go to great expense with that end in view is a futile procedure unless the Minister has some grounds for believing that the abuse of profiteering is in existence. I suggest that to take these powers is futile, and I repeat what I said on an earlier stage, that it is done merely for the purpose of saving the face of the Labour Party. If the Minister really believes there is profiteering in particular commodities, the sensible thing to do would be to hold an inquiry. If the Minister is satisfied that there is any profiteering or any rise in the cost of living, that is the procedure he should adopt.
He says he has no grounds for believing that there is profiteering, and he seems satisfied that tariffs have not resulted in any rise in the cost of living. Then, what on earth will all this expense bring us? We are being asked to give the Minister certain powers; we are being asked to provide this staff which he tells us now is not going to cost anything. He told us on an earlier occasion that tariffs would not mean any rise in the cost of living. I fancy that before we are finished with this Commission there will be more £500 jobs and more £1,000 jobs and there will be a very large number of inspectors.
This section, as I read it, deals only with certain powers that are to be given to the Minister over scheduled commodities.
That is quite true, but I venture to suggest that the powers that he is seeking here will involve an unnecessarily considerable expense, and surely we are entitled to refer to that aspect of the matter?
I submit that this Bill has already got a Second Reading and the principle of it has been approved by the Dáil. We are now discussing detailed provisions——
In relation to commodities set out in the Schedule.
I cannot allow Deputy Dillon to proceed to argue the principle of the Bill because that has already been decided by the Dáil. I can only allow him to discuss what the section proposes to do.
I am suggesting that the Minister is seeking powers that are not required. The Dáil should not be asked to give him those powers and I am laying before the Dáil the reason why.
The Deputy is touching on the principle of the Bill and that has already been approved by the Dáil. On the Second Reading the Deputy had an opportunity of opposing the principle of the Bill, and when the Money Resolution was under consideration most of these points were raised. The Dáil is now in Committee and the Deputy must confine himself to the section.
The section provides that the Executive Council may schedule any commodity that they like for investigation by this Commission.
For the purposes of the Act.
I am arguing, if you will permit, that such powers, for the reasons I am setting out, are not powers that should be given to the Executive Council. If you think I am irrelevant, I do not wish to obstruct you in any way and I bow to your ruling immediately.
I am not anxious to prevent the Deputy dealing with the matter as comprehensively as he desires, but I am anxious to prevent the principle of the Bill being discussed on the section. Does the Deputy propose to say that the Minister should not have power to schedule commodities—that he should do it in some other fashion?
I do not propose that the principle of the Bill should be discussed at all. All I propose to do is to protest against certain wide powers he takes under this section on the ground that by so straining the net of this section he is liable to create an instrument far more expensive than the principle of the Bill makes necessary.
The Deputy's argument is that the scheduling of commodities is going to——
The power it takes to schedule all commodities.
That the scheduling of commodities is going to make the Bill more expensive. Is that the point?
Yes. He schedules certain items in the Bill—food, clothing, material for clothing or fuel. That is a limited scope.
That is the machinery of the Bill.
That is a limited scope. The section then goes on to say: "Any other commodity which is by order of the Executive Council made under this section declared to be a scheduled commodity for the purposes of this Act." I submit that to give the Executive Council powers of that character under the Bill is calculated to saddle the country with an expensive Commission, which can go roving all over the commercial life of the country and make itself a public nuisance. I point out to the Minister that before he should dream of seeking such powers as these he should satisfy himself that there is general profiteering going on, or that there is a general rise in the cost of living. He has repeatedly denied that there is any rise in the cost of living. He has himself disclaimed any responsibility for the suggestion that there is profiteering on a large scale or on an abnormal scale. Yet, he arrives in here and seeks these enormously wide powers which are going to involve us in boundless cost; not the powers sought under the principle of the Bill, which are to inquire, as I suggest, into certain specified prices anticipated in the schedule, but into all prices prevailing in the Free State. It may be that you take the view and that the Dáil takes the view that once the principle of the Bill is accepted that gave the Minister a roving commission to poke his nose into every shop, every factory and every industry in the country. If it did that the Minister, I think, stole a march upon us. I think it is well that the Dáil should know where it is heading. I imagine, for the purposes of the Bill, when we were discussing the principle it would have occurred to most members that the schedule should be the limit of its activities. It now appears under Section 3 that the Commission can, by order of the Executive Council, take to itself a never-ending task, an everwidening task, and will eventually become an incubus on the back of the country that it will be very difficult to get rid of.
Sub-section (2) of the section under discussion says:—"The Executive Council may, by order under this section, declare any commodity of common use to be a scheduled commodity for the purposes of this Act." What are the purposes of the Act in relation to scheduled commodities? Section 21 says "that where the Minister sends a request to the Commission to investigate the prices charged for any scheduled commodity then the Commission shall make an investigation. Section 21, therefore, drives us back to see who are and what is the Commission, and we get that in Section 8, which says the Minister may set up a Commission which shall be known as and styled the Prices Commission and shall consist ordinarily of five members. But under Section 9, "The Minister may from time to time for the purposes of any particular investigation by the Commission appoint such and so many persons (not being ordinary members) to act as additional members of the Commission as he thinks fit." I should like to join in the points raised by Deputy Dillon. If this Bill was going to be confined by the scheduled commodities set out, then we could form an opinion as to what use there was going to be of the Commission and what necessity there would be from time to time to add on more than the ordinary members of the Commission. But, when power is taken to add members, as is proposed here, and that the Minister and Executive Council shall have power to declare any commodity of common use to be a scheduled commodity, then clearly we are going to enlarge the number of investigations and, from time to time have an enlargement of the Commission by the addition of these extra members.
What is the case that has been made for giving this power sought to the Minister? So far as the Bill, even with the scheduled commodities, was concerned the Minister did not express any decided opinion that there was profiteering in the country. He certainly did not give any evidence to the House that there was clearly profiteering even in the scheduled commodities. What has he to say about the commodities other than those scheduled which may, by order, become scheduled commodities? Where is the evidence of profiteering, of gross profit-taking, in any commodity other than those scheduled in the Bill as presented to the House on which the House could vote these extra powers, that the Minister and the Executive Council, from time to time, declare— I call attention again to the wide nature of the sub-section—"any commodity of common use to be a scheduled commodity"? It certainly requires something more than silence on the part of the Minister on the Committee Stage.
I think we should have some indication from him of the commodities other than those scheduled about which he has sufficient evidence that it establishes under the section a prima facie case that he should have extended powers, something more than the power to have an investigation made into food, clothing, material for clothing or fuel. As Deputy Dillon said, so far from getting that, we have what amounts to an expression of opinion on the part of the Minister that he has hesitancy or doubt as to profiteering at all.
I want to bring back to his mind one article about which he declared himself very vehemently. He told us an interesting anecdote in April or May this year about a lady friend of his who had been grossly over-charged for a grape-fruit. The Minister then expressed the point of view that that profiteering was such as would, in his mind, warrant the person responsible being sent to jail. Is grape-fruit a fruit within the meaning of the schedule? It is an article that is eaten. Even the Minister's friends indulge in it. Is it a food? We had a slight discussion on the Second Stage as to foods, and there was an attempt to draw a distinction between foods which are a luxury and foods which are a necessity, in the course of which we got an explanation that tea is a food for the purposes of this Bill, although it is a luxury for the purposes of the Budget. What is grape-fruit? Is it a food, or is it even such a drink that it may be considered a food? Is the Minister likely to order an investigation immediately about such a thing as this grape-fruit which so raised his ire last April? Is he going to have jail for the person who was so grossly over-charging his friend for this commodity? So far from the Minister asking for power to extend the range of commodities beyond what was scheduled, it seems to me the schedule might have been narrowed. There are certain foods which form the subject of investigation throughout the country at regular periods for the purpose of determining what is the index number of prices—for one purpose, at any rate, of deciding upon the cost-of-living bonus. The foods there are limited. They are the foods in ordinary use. Certain items of drink come in, too.
Clothing comes in, and in addition there are certain items about rent. We will leave that out for the moment. What is the necessity of even having such a wide schedule as the mere statement of the word "food" gives without some statement from the Minister to say "any foods examined for the purposes of the cost-of-living figure." In certain foods, other than those, he has evidence of profiteering. Then I come to the last item. I think he should have given some evidence that, apart from food, clothing, materials for clothing or fuel, he had some evidence before him of profiteering in other articles. Instead of that we get, as Deputy Dillon has said, a proposal to set up a Commission. We might have, as I say, our minds clear as to a limited number of investigations of a limited schedule, but where there is wide power of extension we do not know where we are going.
We see also that the Commission, apart from its investigations being multiplied in numbers, may be added to by extra members, and of course it is much more likely to be added to when special commodities are under investigation than if we had a Commission picked with a view to examining the scheduled articles. It seems to me very pertinent to say that sub-section (2) of Section 3 is likely to add very considerably to the expense of the whole measure, and likely to add to the number of people going to be put on the Commission as well as to the number who are going to be asked to act as investigating officers to the Commission. The position here is that all this is presented to us without a word from the Minister.
I would like to amplify what the two previous speakers have said. Deputy Dillon has drawn attention to the schedule which refers to food, clothing, etc. It does not state whether it is human food only and whether this might not apply to feeding stuffs. Deputy McGilligan has pointed out that the powers proposed to be taken under the Bill can be still further extended. The Executive Council may, by order, under the section declare any commodity of common use to be a scheduled commodity for the purpose of this Act. Now, as if those powers were not wide enough, it appears to me that amendment 4 opens the door still wider. The Minister may appoint the Commission to hold a public inquiry for the purposes of Section 17 of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, and if one refers to Section 17 of that Act it will be found —the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that power is given to the Minister to act in place of a local authority that is in default under certain of the Housing Acts. It appears to me as if this Bill, which started out to deal with food and clothing—I do not know whether it is even human food and is now to include any commodity that is in common use—is to be still further extended to local authorities in default. Then, if one of these local authorities is found to be in default, somebody else is to be set up in its place. Is the position to be that the Prices Tribunal is to come in and take the place of the local authority in the case, say, of a building scheme? I would like to have information on those points.
The last matter referred to by Deputy Dockrell can be discussed when we get to that part of the Bill. The Dáil has decided that machinery should be set up for the investigation and controlling of the prices of commodities. This section prescribes the range of commodities in respect of which that investigation and control may take place. Paragraph (a) of the section relates to the schedule, which declares that the scope of action shall include "every commodity which is used as food, clothing, material for clothing or fuel."
Domestic fuel?
The wording was deliberately decided on to make it as wide as possible so that there could be included within its scope every commodity which may be classed as food, fuel, clothing or material for clothing. I think it is quite clear that the price of a grapefruit could be investigated by the Commission under this Bill. It will probably be of greater interest to Deputy McGilligan to know that it can even investigate the price of lemons. The Commission can investigate the quality and price of a range of articles.
The Minister has got quite a number of lemons handed to him lately, and should investigate these.
Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Dillon confined most of their remarks to paragraph (b), which declares that the Commission may also investigate the price of any other article which is by order of the Executive Council declared to be a scheduled commodity for the purposes of this Act. Sub-section (2) gives the Executive Council power to declare any commodity of common use to be a scheduled commodity. Deputy Dillon talked about the Commission as an incubus on industry, roving around the country and poking its nose into all sorts of places, and with unlimited powers. Deputy Dillon has become quite a master in the art of exaggeration, and achieves his effects by ignoring those things that conflict with his own ideas. He ignored, for instance, the effect of sub-section (3), which provides that when an order is made by the Executive Council declaring any commodity to be a scheduled commodity, that order must be laid before the two Houses of the Oireachtas. Each House can, within twenty-one days, if it so pleases, pass a resolution annulling the order. That is the usual form, and I think it is rather an effective check upon the possibility of the Executive Council adopting the attitude which Deputy McGilligan seemed to envisage. Is it not desirable that the Executive Council should have power given to it under sub-section (2) of the section?
No.
Well, that is a matter on which we take the opinion of the Dáil. We are setting up machinery here for the investigation of prices. We are bringing into being a Commission armed with certain powers and certain authority.
Uncertain powers and uncertain authority.
Armed with particular powers and authority. We are asking that Commission to investigate, in certain circumstances, the prices of certain scheduled commodities. If we should find at a later date that a large number of complaints were forthcoming because a particular commodity was not scheduled and in respect of which excessive prices were being charged throughout the country, should we not have some means by which we could get the Commission to investigate complaints without being obliged to bring in a new Bill to the Dáil, getting it passed through all its stages here and later of getting through its various stages in the Seanad so that it might become law? Is it not desirable, assuming, as we must, that the Dáil desires to have investigation of prices, that there should be some easy means by which the range of commodities investigated can be enlarged if the necessity arises, subject to the power of the Dáil to express its opinion? It is quite easy to visualise that situation arising in connection with commodities in common use not down in the schedule. Soap, for example. I do not know whether Deputies opposite regard soap as an article of common use, but it is so regarded by certain parts of the community. If it should happen that there was a combination amongst soap manufacturers, elevating the price and making undue profits, is it not necessary that we should get power to investigate?
Is there any evidence of such at the moment?
I explained when the Bill was before the House, on Second Reading, that there had been a number of complaints from various quarters of excessive prices of different commodities, but I was not able to say definitely that profiteering was taking place. I was told that there was a sufficient volume of complaints to investigate, and, at any rate, it is the duty of the State to have the means of investigating these complaints, but the State has been bereft of this power up to the present. It is going to take that power now, and, in future, if any great number of individuals have reason to complain that undue profits are secured upon the sale, retail or wholesale, of a number of commodities, investigation can take place, and if the complaint is found to be justified, action to reduce prices can follow. That is the purport of the Bill. This section merely relates to the range of articles upon which investigation can take place. I cannot see any logical reason why any single article of food, clothing and material for clothing should not come within the Executive power by order subject to the sub-section if the necessity should arise.
Is not this the old gag of every oligarchy ever set up? "What do you want all this nonsense of an Oireachtas for? Give us the powers, and we will do the job. We will tell you about those things you ought to know—fuel and clothing and a few other things—but when we take action we must have power to do the rest.""We will not come to you to ask permission of you, but we will tell you afterwards, and we will ask you to approve of what we have." That is the old argument of the old oligarchy over again, which comes to the conclusion that it is fit to do the job. That, however, is not the feeling prevailing in this country. The Oireachtas makes laws, not the Ministers, and it is our job to try to keep Ministers in their places. It is not an easy job with their 78 supporters, but that is what we are trying to do. They are trying to get permission from the Oireachtas to do what they want to do and not to do what we want them to do. They want to do what they like first, and then come for retrospective permission from Dáil Eireann afterwards.
This further emerges from the Minister's reply besides what Deputy Dillon has said— profiteering is now thrown overboard. The Minister is again questioned about the offence of profiteering. He is not satisfied that there is any. What is the Bill founded upon? Complaint. There is a sufficient volume of complaint. This calls for the appellation which was so well applied to it by Deputy Dillon previously that it is the merest eyewash. A whole lot of people complain. The Minister and his friends get a whole flood of complaints, and that is what is to be investigated. It was a little more than complaint before. The Minister was so convinced that there was gross profiteering in a particular case that he was prepared to send the seller to jail. He hoped that when the Commission was set up it would be allowed to impose a sentence of imprisonment upon such person. We now have the schedule furthere extended and widened by the interjection of Deputy Moore. It is not only food for men, women and children that is to be dealt with. It may be food for animals. It is not even clothing for human beings. I do not know why he inserted fuel. It may have even a wider extension than anybody may be able to read into some of the limiting words in the schedule. In addition we are asked to give the Executive power to declare any commodities in common use to be scheduled commodities. There was another example given by the Minister. He says if there is some article in common use such as soap, and a complaint of profiteering is made, whether the Minister considers the complaint is a sound one or not, he can send out to have it investigated. I thought, somewhere between the complaint being made, and the operation of Section 21, that we were going to have some discretion used by the Minister, that he is going to make up his mind whether the complaint is well founded or not, but this is merely running with the storm. The Minister invites everyone to send in complaints and he will send out to have investigation made. He is going to enlarge the extent, and to enlarge the activities of the members of the Commission. He is going to enlarge the number of officials and inspectors who will be running round the country poking their noses into people's businesses because someone makes an ill-informed complaint.
He does not send the complaint to the Minister.
Some ill-informed person may make a complaint to the Commission. What is to be the Commission's attitude if they find the Minister asking for investigation because ill-informed complaints are made to him? He will say the Commission is avoiding its duty in operating with any discretion upon these things. If the Commission is going to pay attention to sub-section (2) of Section 21 it shows that they should only be of the opinion that an investigation in the public interest should be made. If they read the Minister's words and see that he has based the whole Bill, not upon profiteering, but upon complaints of profiteering, they are going to take their cue from that, and will see that those general complaints are investigated. If they are as keen as the Minister they are going to investigate everything sent on to them. They can have the schedule enlarged by the Minister's extension showing how he intends the work to be carried on, and further enlarged by the addition of any commodities in common use, by an Order being laid upon the Table for 21 sitting days, by which time the Commission may have investigated the whole of the business. There has been no great case made for the Bill, but it has passed its Second Reading, through the desire expressed by a majority to have profiteering investigated. The whole thing is whether an undue price has been charged. I doubt very much if the House had that clearly before it when passing that principle. The allegation of profiteering was not going to be sustained by evidence based on complaints. Whether or not the House passed that, the House is now asked in detail to agree to an extension of the articles in the schedule by giving to the Executive Council the power to add any article in common use to-day. Whatever the House may have passed on the Second Reading they have not got any evidence now on which to pass this, and I am going to divide against it.
The Deputy said that the Bill is based upon complaints and not upon evidence.
Your statement.
I do not think there is any evidence which points to the fact that we had any power to investigate complaints. There was no machinery at the command of the State, no power in any Minister to carry out investigations of a complaint. Is that desirable? If complaints are made in reference to any commodity for which excessive prices are charged is it desirable that the only thing we can do with the complaints is to put them into the waste paper basket? That is all we can do until this Bill is passed. Let me say that the Bill would be introduced if there was no complaint. It is machinery which should be in existence. The powers conferred on the State by this Bill should be possessed by it, and, in particular, the powers conferred in Part 5 should be in existence once a protective policy is brought into operation.
I must reply to that. The Minister stated that there was no power without this Bill to do anything except to put complaints into the waste paper basket. That is not so. The Minister will find in the records of the Department that investigations were made. The Minister will also find records of an Act which could be brought into operation by simply passing a resolution in the House, naming the particular article, whereas this includes power to take evidence on oath and to commit a person. Apart from that, it required coming before the House and making a case for the institution of a special tribunal, and specifying the article. The Minister will find on the records many investigations that were made on complaints, and will also find that some of them were attended with results—the lowering of prices.
I should like to refer to Sections 5 and 6 together, as they are closely allied. These sections furnish further evidence of a practice which is growing. The Minister seeks, under these two sections, power to make regulations. That sounds harmless enough, but what is the nature of these regulations to be? The Minister reassures us. He tells us that he is going to lay these regulations on the Table of the House and that we will be given an opportunity of convincing the other members of the Oireachtas that the regulations are either good or bad. Just as he was giving us that assurance, there were three members of the Fianna Fáil Party sitting on the Government Benches. Nevertheless, when the division bell rang, they came galloping in to form a judgment on the proposal of the Minister without getting the benefit of our argument. When the Minister comes down with his regulations, twenty-one days old, and lays them on the Table, the three faithful followers of Fianna Fáil will be arrayed behind him. When the division bell rings, the 73 faithful followers will come struggling up the stairs and through the lobby. Then they will all walk out again. That is the danger. So long as the Minister takes powers of this character, it simply means that, while the Bill operates, the Minister will make the law and will come down and go through the form of depositing papers on the Table. That will be the end of it. There will be no opportunity and no way of compelling the Minister to defend his proposal before he puts it into operation. The Minister will, of course, say that he has to defend it at the end of twenty-one days. But he has twenty-one days to do what he pleases. Presumably, he will be able to ascertain if there is profiteering on the price of butter, though he will have to consult the Minister for Agriculture before he starts to inquire into that, and for twenty-one days he will be operating, and he will have his inspectors careering around the country before he can be called upon to defend his action. The Minister may get up and say that these regulations do not amount to anything, that they are a mere form which appears in every Bill of this character. But so long as that kind of power is given to the Minister, these regulations will grow in importance and very soon it will not be the Oireachtas that will be legislating in respect of price control but the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
As Deputy Dillon was making that speech on this section, I thought it had an air of familiarity. I am quite certain that I made the same speech myself in respect of similar proposals on several occasions during the past five years.
There is nothing like candour.
More than that, other eminent legal authorities in other countries have been making similar speeches and writing articles to the papers regarding the tendency of modern legislation to have these minor details attended to by regulation rather than by specific enactment. I got tired making speeches of that kind after a time and I am sure the Deputy will also get tired.
Is it conceivable that in this Assembly we have got to that glorious stage of candour when a leader of the Opposition frankly admits that they spent their time, when in Opposition, fooling the unfortunate electors? The Minister has the glorious courage to get up and say that what he advocated as the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party for the past seven years was just a fraud to get votes. I doff my hat to him. I say this for him—that he has certainly introduced one element into the public life of this country that is highly desirable.
I do not deserve that compliment.
Fool the public first and then tell them plainly and bluntly that you thought very little of them, but that that was the best way to knock the votes out of them.
I should like to explain to the Deputy that when I was making speeches similar to that which he has just delivered I was quite as sincere as he is. But I was like the king who ordered the tide to recede. This is the trend of modern legislation and it cannot be stopped.
There was another tide the Minister tried to stop. In his election advertisements he spoke about reducing expenditure.
Does it arise on this Bill?
It does.
There is a tide in the affairs of men which taken at the flood leads on to fortune, but it left you on the rocks.
I wonder where is the Minister going to.
The Deputy's speech is antediluvian.
The Minister is an authority on things that are antediluvian.
The Deputy has some bright specimens of them.
I would not like to envisage bright specimens of antediluvians. The Minister certainly is not bright about this. Economies were promised extending to £2,000,000 and we get £4,000,000 additional slapped on. I am sure that we should read what the Minister for Industry and Commerce said to-night with the speeches he was making when in Opposition. He spoke about trying to stop the trend of legislation. It is just the same kind of cant. It was not meant. We have the section here. There is a further advance of legislation by order. I do not object to legislation by order on principle. The thing is quite good, but there should be some discrimination. That is what Deputy Dillon has been getting at. That is the gist of his arguments. No evidence is given of profiteering. Even when the Minister was introducing this Bill he made no statement that there is any evidence of profiteering. What he said was that there had been an enormous number of complaints. Instead of pitching those complaints into the ordinary type of wastepaper basket he is seeking to pitch them into a new type of wastepaper basket in the form of this Commission. The Minister seeks an extension of his powers by way of order. I say with Deputy Dillon that this is a sufficiently serious matter, too serious a matter to be done by order; but if it is to be done by order it should be done in the way of order. It should not become law until it is passed. The attention of the faithful followers of both Parties should be given to it, and they should be able to form their judgment upon it.
There is something to be said for that type of order which may be laid on the Table of the House for 21 days and may never be raised. Even if raised, everything that is desired may have been achieved before the 21 days' period is passed. Of course, even if a motion of that kind is put down the Government can always refuse facilities for discussion until the very end of the period. Does the Minister think that this is a suitable type of thing? I am not going to discuss this on the basis that legislation by order is bad, but does the Minister consider that legislation by order in reference to the enlargement of powers by way of extending the articles in the Schedule is a good thing?
We discussed that matter long ago. We are on another section now altogether.
We are on another section, but it has reference to this matter, quite definite reference to it. What is the order that we are discussing?
The section says the Minister may, by order, make regulations in relation to any matter or thing referred to in this Act or to be prescribed.
This section does not refer to an order that would be made under Section 3?
No.
It does not.
There is specific provision for that.
There may be, but this is also an order that could be made under it. This phraseology is sufficiently wide to include that type of order. The Minister has a substantial variety of reasons under the Bill. This order comes in under Section 5.
Does the Deputy know what they are?
If the Minister likes I will go through the various sections.
The Deputy will begin to realise how foolish his speech sounds when he has read the Bill.
I did hear the Minister say that he did not know to what Section 8 really referred. I expect the Minister himself is one of those who did not read the Bill. However, speaking in the abstract, it may be necessary to have legislation by order. Let us hear the Minister defend the various types of things that he sees ahead of him as requiring orders that will have to be brought before the House, and which will become law unless they are negatived by a resolution of the House. Let us hear him on those matters. Let him make the defence to the House that is accustomed to legislation by order, a defence that it is a proper thing to have a variety of things prescribed in this way. The analogy with the order that is to be made under Section 3, which has just been passed, is very close to the orders that will be made under Sections 5 and 6. They are phrased in practically the same form. It is not one that will require notice in this House to be called to it, not that type of thing. If the Minister wants us to give him these orders let us hear from him. If this is to be done in an agreed form, we should get some statement as to why it was put in this form rather than the form in which the House would know of it before it becomes law.
This form was adopted because the matters to be prescribed are minor matters; they relate to matters of the form in which the complaints are to be made. I may tell the Deputy that though his speech is not intended to be serious, it is quite obvious that he intended to obstruct this in the interests of the Profiteers' Association. We have the Army Comrades Association already, and no doubt we will now have the Profiteers' Association. The Deputy's opposition to this Bill is designed in the interests of the profiteers.
I would not mind that only that the Minister has told us already that there are no profiteers and that he knows of none. That is the whole difficulty. Now talking about armies——.
Not under this Bill.
Oh, yes, sir, definitely. There is going to be an army of officials.
Under this section?
And a terrible army it is going to be.
It is not going to be appointed under this section.
Certainly some of the duties will be defined under some of these sections, and on each section which speaks of anything to be prescribed I will refer back to Sections 5 and 6. If anything is to be prescribed it is going to be relevant to talk about the method by which it can be done.
The Deputy may delay the measure, but he cannot stop it, even in the interests of profiteers.
The Minister has been able to find only one profiteer. That is the person who sold a grape fruit to the Minister's lady friend. If the Minister had given us any evidence of profiteering we should agree. If there had been profiteering and we wanted to cut that out quickly, I would be in favour of giving the Minister those powers. I would say, "Come back to the House and we will see about passing a law which will prevent profiteering."
The Minister has two defences. He says "cut out the profiteer" in spite of the fact that he had refused to give evidence of profiteering and in spite of the fact that he said there was no evidence before him. The Minister said there was no evidence of profiteering before him to convince him that there was profiteering, but he said that there were complaints. If the Minister is to give heed to complaints he will have a terrible time ahead, because they are growing in number, but that is another matter. Obstruction— it is a peculiar use of the word. Anything which attempts to get sense into the Minister's head is obstruction. I should have thought that it was an attempt to clear away an obstruction. The Minister does not see that. What are we obstructing the Minister doing by talking about these orders? Getting after non-existent profiteers? That is, I think, his own case. Then again the other phrase is used: "Talk as much as you like, this is going to become law." Might I point out to the Minister a measure about which that very phrase was used, and which did not become law in the way in which he threatened it was going to become law? In the end, the Minister bowed and gave us the amendments we required on the Control of Manufactures Bill, and there is considerable good in arousing the public conscience on certain matters like this, because it has its repercussions afterwards. We have seen how often on other matters, in which the Minister forced his way through on Finance measures, he had to come back to this House and bring in resolutions himself to meet points that, when previously raised, were phrased to be just as much obstruction as he speaks of now. We have given the Minister some little education by reason of speaking here. It is a difficult task, but we are going to persevere at it.
I would like to ask the Minister one question. Did I understand him to say that these orders would be laid on the Table of the Dáil within twenty-one days of their making?
No, as soon as may be.
The period is not specified. The term is "as soon as may be."
I would like to draw the Minister's attention to that. Despite the fact that he has been campaigning in this field himself, that aspect of it has not turned up to him. The Dáil Recess may take place to-day. To-morrow, the Minister can make an Order and operate under that Order for four or five months and then, as soon as may be, in the next Session, submit it to the faithful and the true, and we have twenty-one days to examine it. I would suggest to the Minister that whereas he objects to people poking their noses into business in this country, he ought to be very reluctant to ask for powers to arrogate to himself the right to poke his own nose into his neighbour's affairs. This may be the practice, and, if it has been, it is a rotten bad practice, but, of all cases, where you are going to undertake to run a man's business in the country a little better than he is able to run it himself, the Minister ought to be reluctant to ask powers to arrogate to himself the right to undertake the conduct of his neighbour's affairs. There should be express sanction from the Dáil before he takes that burden on his broad and capable shoulders.
I would like some information about this Commission.
I was just going to ask the Minister the same question. Under this Bill, the Commission that is to be set up, as I understand it, will consist of five members, two of whom are to be women, and the only person who is mentioned as having any special knowledge is the representative of agriculture on this Commission. As this Commission will be inquiring into matters which deeply concern the commercial community, matters which are of considerable importance to the State, it is highly desirable that one of those members, at least, should have business knowledge, should be a representative of the commercial community. I think the Minister will agree that that is highly desirable, and I would like him to incorporate a proviso in this section setting out that, in addition to having one representative of agriculture, which I agree is our basic industry, and ought to have a special representative, it is essential that a representative of commerce should be on that tribunal in order to guide it, seeing that commerce is going to be closely inquired into by this tribunal. I would ask the Minister to embody in this particular section a clause to the effect that a representative of the commercial community shall be one of the members of the Commission.
I agree fully with what Deputy Good has said, that it is highly desirable that, at least one, if not more, of the members of the proposed Commission should have commercial experience and knowledge of the conditions existing in trade and industry in this country, but I would like the Deputy to try his own hand at drafting the amendment on these lines. The Deputy may assume that the Minister, in the exercise of his powers under this section, in relation to the appointment of the Commission, will have to have regard to that fact, and also to other facts, such as the desirability of having somebody on the Commission who will have a knowledge of the laws of evidence and the desirability of having people who have had experience of price investigations in the past or something of that kind.
The special qualification which will be required by anybody carrying out investigations on this Commission will have to be taken into account, and it is intended to take them into account. That is undoubtedly the intention, but it would be practically impossible to set down this qualification in the Bill. We did set down the condition that one of the persons should be a representative of agricultural interests, and that is elaborated in the following sub section which says that that person shall be selected after consultation with the Minister for Agriculture, who is responsible for representing the views of the agricultural community in this regard, and ensures that the names of suitable representatives will be available to the Minister when making the selection, but the Minister for Industry and Commerce is the person to select the individual with the special knowledge of industrial and commercial conditions that would make that person a useful person on this Commission, and that is undoubtedly the intention.
I do not know if there is any other point necessary by way of explanation of the section. It appears to be quite clear. The Commission shall be appointed, and it shall consist of five persons, two of whom shall be women and one of whom shall be a representative of agricultural interests.
Why has the Minister specified the sex of two members of the Commission?
It is considered desirable—and I am open to conviction on the matter—that two of the members of the Commission should be women because, in respect of most articles of common consumption of the type specified in the Schedule, women are, in the main, the purchasers. It is the women who do the actual shopping and buying of these goods, and, consequently, special provision should be made to ensure representation for women on the Commission.
But the Minister is reluctant to incorporate the statutory limitation such as Deputy Good suggests, on the ground that he does not want unduly to limit his discretion, and yet he is limiting his discretion in a most clear and cantankerous way with others.
I do not think that any Deputy will deny that we could have one of the women representatives a representative of the commercial community.
Why limit your hand in regard to the sex of the members of the Commission? It does not seem sensible.
We think it is desirable that we should do so and that we should have two women on the Commission.
Trust your own discretion.
Thinking that, you would put them on?
Quite.
But why bind yourself to it?
There is no special reason why we should bind ourselves but, in our view, it should be statutory.
Although there is no special reason?
If the Deputy thinks otherwise, let him move an amendment. That is my proposal. Sub-section (4) provides that the members shall hold office during the pleasure of the Minister, and sub-section (5) makes provision for the replacement of any member temporarily incapacitated from acting through illness or some other sufficient reason.
Is it prudent that an ordinary member of this Commission, who has practically judicial functions allotted to him, and who might make a finding that would not please the Minister a bit, should be in the position to be informed by the Minister that his services are no longer required? Could he not have some defined period of tenure on this preposterous Committee where, at least, he would have an opportunity of speaking the truth in public? He could speak the truth in public if he could do no other useful work. As it is, if a man says anything to vex the Minister, the Minister can put him off the Commission. I do not think there is any precedent for investing a person with judicial functions and, at the same time, giving to the Minister who appoints him the right to dismiss him at his discretion without cause stated or anything else. Is that desirable?
I think it is desirable. I think that if, for any reason, a member of this Commission was carrying out his work in a manner which, in the opinion of the Minister, was not satisfactory, the Minister should have power to replace him in order to ensure that that Commission would be an effective body.
Does the Minister really state that as a principle; so that if the Minister for Justice is not satisfied with a judge he should have power to kick him out?
The circumstances are different altogether.
I do not agree. If these men report that "We find that this person has been constrained to charge a higher price as a result of such and such tariff" the Minister will write a short note to say "You have not apparently read the Official Reports where I have said repeatedly ‘Tariffs do not raise the cost of living'." If the Minister puts in a provision here that a man's term of office cannot be terminated except for reasons stated and by a resolution of the Dáil he certainly removes himself from the invidious position of removing a member of the Commission who might be violently opposed to the opinions of the Minister in his views on economics, and he places upon himself the onus of showing cause why a man, upon whom he has caused the light of publicity to shine, should be publicly denounced before the community as an incompetent or worse. It should be for a cause stated and reason shown in Dáil Eireann. Otherwise the Commission would be an even greater and more laughable farce than it already promises to be.
On Section 8 we have got to examine this a little bit more closely. Section 8 puts upon the Minister the duty of establishing a Prices Commission to fulfil the functions assigned to the Commission by the Act. The only limitation that is imposed upon the Minister is confined to five people—five ordinary members, and then there is a further limitation, two members shall be women, and one, who may be one of the women, shall be a person representative of agricultural interests. On that first point the Minister has been asked why he would not define that one of them would be a person experienced in commercial affairs, and he thought—whatever would be a suitable thing to have in the back of one's mind—it was an unsuitable thing to be set down. He has set it down that two must be women, and that one, who may be a woman, shall be representative of agricultural interests in the country. If it is undesirable to set it down with regard to a person representing commercial interests, surely it is equally undesirable to set down this discrimination by way of sex. The Minister said that there was no special reason why it should be done, but he is doing it. Sub-section (3) goes on to say:
"The ordinary member who is required to be a person representative of agricultural interests shall be nominated by the Minister after consultation with the Minister for Agriculture."
And then we get the amazing sub-section to which Deputy Dillon has referred that the other ordinary members shall be nominated by the Minister. This Commission is to be set up to fulfil the functions assigned to the Commission by the Act. Let us look at some of them. Section 17 sets out some of the powers. Those are to be the powers given to a Commission, all the members of which are removable at the will of the Minister.
"The Commission shall have all such powers, rights, and privileges for enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath (which any member of the Commission is hereby authorised to administer) or otherwise, and for compelling the production of documents as are vested in the High Court, or a judge thereof in respect of the trial of an action, and a summons signed by any one or more members of the Commission shall be equivalent to and have the like effect as a formal process issued by the High Court for enforcing the attendance of witness and compelling the production of documents."
Then there are penalties. If any person on being duly summoned, and the summons being duly signed by any one of those people makes default in attending or
being in attendance as a witness refuses to take an oath legally required by the Commission to be taken, or to produce any document in his power and control legally required by the Commission to be produced by him, or to answer any question to which the Commission may legally require an answer, or
does any other thing which would, if the Commission were a Court of Justice, having power to commit for contempt of court, be contempt of such court,
the Commission may certify the offence of that person under their hands to the High Court and that court may, after such inquiry as it thinks proper to make, punish or take steps for the punishment of that person in like manner as if he had been guilty of contempt of the said court.
There is a considerable equation of the composition of this Committee, and, say a court of intermediate jurisdiction in this country, and yet I have here the Minister amongst others foaming here at the suggestion of appointing a temporary District Justice on the ground that because they were temporary—not mind you that they were removable at the will of the Minister, but because they were appointed for a limited period—they were not the proper type of impartial person one should associate with the Courts of Justice, and that was urged with regard to the lowest person we have under the scheme of courts in the country, temporary District Justices. Yet we are going to set up a Commission with considerable powers, for compelling the attendance of witnesses, asking questions, and commiting for contempt of court, because such questions are not answered, and so on, and every member of it shall hold office during the pleasure of the Minister. Surely it establishes immediately that the purpose of this is that the Minister will bring pressure upon those people to report on any investigation submitted to them as he wants, and, if they do not, they are going to be fired.
There is a section in it which talks about the finance of this Commission. It is obvious from later sections—it is absolutely certain—that the power of granting salaries for serving on such a Commission is there. I think it is pretty obvious from what we have seen of the reports of another board that the salaries are going to be paid. The Minister is going to appoint people to harass the folk of the country with regard to an evil which he himself says is not existent, and he is going to give some justification hereafter for this Bill, and for the amount of inconvenience and pinpricking that is going to be caused to the traders of the country. What better way could he get than by packing this Commission—packing it with people whom he expects to be subservient to his wishes and afterwards holding over them the threat. "If you do not do what I desire you are going to lose the bit of salary we give you for serving on the Commission." Does not the Minister at any rate exclude the worst criticism of that type if he says "were appointed for a yearly term" and let the reappointment be in the Minister's hands, but appoint for some fixed term? The man who goes on goes on with the knowledge that he is still subject to being dropped at the end of the year, but he also goes on with this knowledge, that if he serves for a year and he is not reappointed it will be open to people to question why he is not reappointed, and if his public performance has been good the Minister will be subjected to quite an amount of criticism for not reappointing him. The man will have the security of knowing that if he shows himself to be expert in that matter there is a considerable amount of experience piled up by him at the end of the year which should lead to his reappointment, but in this the whole thing is at the pleasure of the Minister, and these are considerable powers that are being given and it is certainly not right that they should be given to people who hold office from day to day, from investigation to investigation, or rather from the result of each investigation to another, at the pleasure of the Minister, whose view of them is apt to be clouded by the general circumstances to which Deputy Dillon has referred.
If they are finding things the Minister has been definitely adverse to in this House, if they are finding things that really go to counter many of the Minister's arguments, they are not going to have very much of a chance of being carried forward. I think the Minister should, at any rate, tell us whether he is going to bind himself to any limitation of these members—of the type he has already set out in sub-section 2 and tell us what he has in his mind with regard to these Commissions; what type of people he intends to put on them, if he can get them. What the Minister may intend to do is very often blocked by circumstances. It is not always possible to get the proper people—the proper people may be there and not willing to serve, and the people the Minister may think would be best to get for this Commission are going to be impeded from serving on it by the very fact that they can be thrown off at any minute if the Minister takes a wrong view of them. We should know what type of person he has in his mind. I gather from what has been said that somebody with something approaching judicial capacity is going to be put on—somebody at any rate who has some capacity for ruling, as to what is evidence and what is not evidence; what is a suitable question to put to a witness, and whether refusal to reply is a matter of privilege or whether it is simply perverse and such as should be reported to the High Court.
When I look at the later section here, what is to be done? Take Section 22—First of all, they have to decide whether the prices charged for certain things are unduly high. Then they are to ask the people concerned, whoever is responsible for those unduly high prices, to lower them. If they are not lowered, notice is to be sent to the Minister setting out the reason for the prices being too high and
the Commission shall give notice (in this section referred to as a price reduction notice) to the persons by whom such prices are being charged stating the opinion of the Commission and the price to which such prices should in the opinion of the Commission be reduced, and requiring such reduction to be made within a time specified in such notice;
and
(iii) their opinion as to the price to which the prices the subject of such investigation should be reduced.
That is not a decision that can be come to by two women whose touch with prices is simply that they purchase articles in shops. A very big variety of considerations would come before this Commission when they have got to determine what is the real price to which all the prices in this particular set of commodities are to be related. I think the Minister is very foolish in tying himself to women. I think he is rather foolish in trying himself even that in all matters there should be a person representative of agriculture. I think it would be much better if he left himself completely free or else let him show himself completely under their influence and put on five, but will he give us a statement subject always to the chance of circumstances that he may not get the people he has in mind. Will he tell us what this Commission will be for the group of commodities that are scheduled—for food, clothing, material for clothing and fuel.
What is the type of Commission he will establish? What is more or less the specification of persons that he will put on if he has them at his disposal. When he gives us that description I think we can go on to consider whether these people are of such a type that they will hold office at the pleasure of the Minister.
Section 8.
Am I not going to get any answer in the matter?
I want to say a few words on this matter. I want to support some of the contentions that have been made by Deputy Dillon and the last speaker. I think it was in the year 1923, owing to the knowledge that I had acquired when sitting on the Board of a Hospital for many years, I had shown at all events a certain knowledge as to prices of foods, and I was asked to sit on the Food Commission which sat in 1923, and on which I gave a great deal of information. I cannot make, and I do not intend to make, a Second Reading speech on this occasion. Allow me, however, to say that so far as conditions then and conditions now are concerned, that although there was very strong evidence of profiteering in those days, I do not think anything like the same conditions apply at the present time. Now, sir, I want to urge upon the Minister that he should not restrict his choice in any way. There were two ladies sat upon the Food Commission on which I sat, and one lady subsequently sat upon the Liquor Commission of which I was a member. Now I want to say, so far as these ladies were concerned, they showed considerable interest in the work. They did not cross-examine to any great extent, and one of the ladies who gave evidence before us assured us there would be no question of any profiteering if the lady purchaser only went to the right place. She said it was all their own fault—if they go in and give a big price—it is their own fault. You could get the thing cheap enough if you know where to go. However, I am merely stating that I think it is a great mistake, at all events, for the Minister to restrict himself in any way in the Bill. Let him put two ladies if he likes on, but I think he should not restrict himself.
The next point is of far greater importance. As I say, I sat on these two Commissions. I sat on them because I was supposed to have a certain amount of knowledge with regard to the price of food as applied to the supplies to hospitals for many years. On the liquor question I did show a certain amount of knowledge and interest also, and I was pressed as a matter of fact to sit upon that Commission. I did not want to sit on either of them, and I want to say now quite definitely that I would not have accepted the position if there had been any restriction placed upon me, nor would I have sat upon them if there was the slightest hint that I could be removed at the will of any Minister. I want to say that very definitely. I do not think the Minister is going to get independent people who will give independent judgment if he is going to say:—"I am going to hunt you off the Commission whenever I like, or if you do not carry out instructions that come from my office." I would not quite definitely have sat upon a Commission where I received any instructions from a Minister, or any advice as to what I should do, or what principles I should follow. Now, sir, I admit, and I think it is very advisable that there should be on the Commission a person with legal training, a person who would know the form of evidence that should be given. That is of very great importance—and as Deputy Good has stated, I think it is very advisable that people who are in business should be represented on the Commission. I was not in business, and I think I showed on the Commission that I had as great a knowledge of the prices that should be paid for things, as anybody else upon it, so that, as I say, I would like the Minister to keep himself absolutely free. He is not going to choose me, I am sure of that, he is not going to choose me for another reason —that I sat upon this Commission without getting any pay. He is going to pay people who are coming on Commissions now. Those who sat on Commissions in the past got no remuneration whatever, which was a very hard thing. We gave our time, and it was very hard on me personally to give the amount of time I had to give, but I gave it freely and willingly and there was no remuneration in these days. As I say, I want the Minister to leave himself without any restriction and to remove the provision regarding these two women. Let him appoint two women if he likes or appoint a legal gentleman if he likes, but let there be no restriction.
I should like to emphasise one question that apparently has arisen. There are to be five members on the Commission. Two of these are to be women and one a representative of agriculture. That leaves two vacancies. At the same time it has been mentioned that one of the other members should have a legal training. That would bring the membership up to four and leave the Minister with one vacancy to fill. One question that has been mentioned, and I think it is the most important that the Commission will have to decide is, what is cost? We all remember the discussions that take place in regard to that question and I can only say that I feel puzzled when I hear of two women, a representative of agriculture and a legal gentleman discussing what is cost, without the assistance of an accountant or without the assistance of a business man. I think that these two sections will have to be provided for, so that I do not see very well how the Minister is going to fit all these members on the Commission and give a proper representation to the business community. Certainly, in my humble opinion, in so far as so many of the questions to be decided will turn on the matter of cost, there will also have to be an accountant on the Commission.
There is one point I should like to raise. In a recent notice in the Press of the appointment of a Labour member on the Housing Board, I think there was a salary mentioned of £500 per annum. I think the Minister in appointing a representative of Labour in this case would give more satisfaction to the House if he appointed some person who was in receipt of trade union wages. That person would be better able to appraise price values and so on than somebody from the aristocracy of Labour.
I suppose Deputy Cosgrave had to get his little handful of mud across before the discussion terminated.
I am sure the Minister's very purifying words will remedy all that. Has he an objection to a trade unionist?
Does Deputy Cosgrave mean the rate of wages he tried to establish?
More than you pay.
He is flinging mud in the hope that some of it may stick, but mud thrown is ground lost. Think it over.
Not at all. Matter is indestructible.
As regards the point made by Deputy Sir James Craig and others, there is a condition that two members of the Commission shall be women. That is a condition upon which I have more or less an open mind. I think it is desirable that we should tie ourselves down to this condition, but if any Deputy moves to delete it, I am prepared to argue it as an open question without any matter of a Party vote or anything of that kind. It is, in my opinion, not a very substantial point, because presumably the Minister, in selecting the members of the Commission, will be anxious to get a balanced team representative of as many interests as possible so grouped as to ensure that it will be capable of carrying out its function under the Bill. One comes to expect absurd nonsensical arguments from Deputy McGilligan, but nevertheless it is not very easy to suffer them gladly. There is no possible comparison between the Commission to be appointed under this Bill and a District Justice. The Commission does nothing more than report and it is on the report of the Commission that the Minister may act. He may act if he thinks fit, but there is nothing in this Bill to require him to act on the report. The purpose of the Commission is to investigate and report. Certainly it is not a judicial body at all, but in order to ensure that it will be able to get evidence on which to base its report certain powers are conferred on it as set out in Section 17.
What powers?
Power to ensure the attendance of witnesses and to get witnesses to give evidence on oath is conferred on it. The self-same powers were conferred on the Prices Tribunal some years ago. A point Deputy Sir James Craig should remember is that there is an essential difference between this Commission and that on which he acted. It is a permanent body. It is not a temporary body which goes out of existence after it reports. It is a permanent body.
The members will be removable after a year.
Is it intended that we should appoint them for ever?
No.
They are going to be appointed for a specific purpose—for a year, the Deputy suggested. They would be appointed for a year if the Deputy's suggestions were adopted irrespective of whether they abused their powers. They would have to remain there as members of the Commission——
I never said any such thing.
The Deputy said that if they were not continued on the Commission the Minister would have to explain why they were not. The Minister is an officer of the Dáil, responsible to the Dáil if he removes any member of the Commission. Under sub-section (4), Section 5, he is liable to be questioned here in regard to his action in that matter. It is obviously desirable in view of the powers which Deputy McGilligan read out as being conferred on members of the Commission, that the Minister if he wants to make the Commission effective and to ensure that it is going to get the co-operation of the general public, should be able to remove any member of the Commission if he thinks there is a case for his removal.
Why not put that down here?
Is it necessary?
It is.
Where does the necessity arise?
Personally I would not take office under these terms.
The Deputy will not be called upon to do so. I have no doubt we will get competent people to take office under these terms.
Define competence.
No doubt the Deputy wants a definition. It is one that is new to his vocabulary.
The Minister's view of what is competent would amuse me.
I have no doubt. Obviously when we are setting up the Commission the members are going to be appointed by the Minister and are removable by the Minister. They need not be removed and will not be removed unless there is cause to remove them and if he does remove them the Minister will have to defend his action here. The Minister may have to defend it if any member of the House is convinced that the removal is not justifiable. If we want to get an effective Bill—and we on this side of the House do want an effective measure to deal with profiteering—this section is necessary.
In regard to the question of not getting applications for membership of the Commission on those terms, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the only apprehension I have is that the Minister will be killed in the rush. Government Buildings will be stormed and stampeded by persons who will be glad to take these jobs on any terms, but the fact remains that no man who has any respect for himself will take the position under these terms. There are a number of ways of getting out of it, if the Minister will accept the principle that it is not desirable that there should not be the power of removal without cause stated.
I think it is very desirable that we should have the power stated.
It is a desirable principle, quite apart from the question of convenience or expediency.
Would the Minister not consider that that amendment would water his powers?
Would the Minister be prepared to say that he does not like the principle but that it is necessary? I quite agree the Bill is something like a Heath Robinson cartoon and creaks and groans in every section, but if it is only a means of making the Bill work he might consider on the Report Stage some other scheme to make it workable. Is he prepared to consider any other method except this absolute power to kick any man off the Commission he wishes? If an alternative proposal is made which will put a reasonable tenure of office on any commissioner and at the same time protect him from such arbitrary powers, will the Minister consider such a proposal?
I am prepared to consider any reasonable proposal, but not if it is put in by people opposed to the Bill nor if it is designed to defeat the purpose and effectiveness of the Bill.
The Minister operates his power under sub-section 4 of Section 8 and at his pleasure dismisses a member of the Board. Two very disgusting cases were raised at question time to-day, and are to be raised further to-night. It was asked why did the Minister for Justice act in a particular way in these cases——
Does this arise?
——and we were told that this was a prerogative and should not be discussed here. Will the Minister answer more amiably if in the future he is asked why did he dismiss so-and-so from the board? Will he give the answer that immediately jumps to his mind, that it might be damaging to the reputation of the person? There is quite a number of counters to questions of that kind that are put up in such cases, which will close down discussion. If a member goes on this board with sub-section (4) of Section 8 replaced by some such provision as this: That every ordinary member shall hold office for a period to be specified by the Minister when appointing him, which period shall not be less than a year, and during that period may not be removed except for cause stated to the Dáil by the Minister and approved by a resolution of the Dáil— if a member accepted appointment under these conditions, he would then know that the conditions under which he might be removed would have to be explained to, and accepted by, the Dáil. He would take office knowing what would be the consequences. He would be forewarned and would act accordingly, but he also would have it before him that the Minister had got to come down here and make a statement giving the reasons why he had been dropped from the board. It would not be a question of merely dropping him and then have a fobbing off of questions with the usual type of answer—that it was undesirable to have certain things discussed. We have two things clearly before our minds with regard to this Commission. A colleague of the Minister was spoken to in the Seanad with regard to Commissions in general. He was then objecting to a Commission being set up —that the Minister should have all the power.
Would the Deputy please give the reference?
Seanad Debates, Vol. 15, No. 17, columns 1826-7. There is a later reference, which I shall give:
"There are many objections to a Commission that we need not go into now, whether that Commission be one composed of civil servants or of independent people called together as an advisory body. We have had some experience of Commissions. I must confess that even the experience which I thought I had did not fully cover what I have seen since I went into this Department. Commissions are very often slow. Civil Service Commissions are inevitably slow, because they must run within the red tapes afforded by the Department. Other Commissions, independent or socalled independent Commissions, have in fact operated in the State within the last few years, and I must confess that I have been more disappointed even than I thought I was by realising what some of those Commissions did."
Then he went on to say that the Minister in charge of a particular Department, working in close conjunction, as he must, with his Executive Council and subject to the Oireachtas—apart from his Executive Council with his work shown to the public and with everything being known—is better than any Commission. Later on, in column 1833, we get this ponderous statement:
"I do not want to refer again to the experience of Commissions—and I speak with a considerable amount of knowledge of rather disturbing things"—
the Minister for Finance need not be worried. It does not refer to him—
"but I do not want to see any Commission, and I do not want to see outside or advisory Commissions of so-called independent people."
And then there was this grand finale:
"I know what I am talking about."
That is Senator Connolly. We are entitled to look at the Commission which is being considered to try to get a view of what it is likely to do. A Housing Board is being set up of three salaried people. Who are they? An individual representing the Labour Party, or who, I suppose, could be described as representing Labour interests, is upon it. What had he to do with housing?
What has this to do with this section?
It shows the type of men who might be put on the present Commission.
Is it relevant?
An analysis of the Housing Board is hardly relevant.
We did not get on that Board a person familiar with the matter with which it has to deal. What are we likely to get here? Some other needy Labour person. They have got to be kept in good form this weather.
Another handful of mud. Some day I must publish a list of the jobs arranged by the ex-Minister.
And that will not be mud, I suppose. We have this example. There were many Labour men who could have been appointed on a Board like that, or that may be appointed on the proposed Board, but look at the choice that was made in the former case. Will the same motives that operated there operate with regard to this? It has been described by a number of people as simply an opportunity to provide jobs. There is no evidence that this Commission is required. There is no profiteering. There are only complaints, and we are going to have people appointed, at salaries presumably, to investigate complaints. The Minister has given us no information as to the types who will form the members of the Board. He has not stated whether there will be an accountant or an agriculturist or an experienced person of any kind, and we have all the time to bear in mind that among these representatives there must be two women on the Commission. We have not got that statement from him and any attempt to get it from him is described either as obstruction or throwing mud. He could stop any criticism of this type by stating if he has in his mind types and not persons and if he has not individuals before his mind as the suitable people to appoint. Has he a category of people from whom he is going to draw the members? Let us eliminate, at any rate, certain undesirable categories. If the Minister likes to sit in a sort of sulky silence certain conclusions will be drawn from that. The Minister is going to accept, or he will consider, an amendment, provided it is not put down by people who are obviously opposed to this Bill. This rules out this Party.
The profiteers' party.
And the profiteers do not exist.
Nor does the mud!
When the Minister is here himself he cannot speak of profiteers because he cannot produce evidence with regard to them. There was a lot of bawling down in the country about profiteering and prices, and about people battening on the poor, and so this had to come along. There is no evidence of it and there is no evidence that the Minister is serious about this Commission. He has not given us any indication that he has thought about the people he wants to appoint or the categories from which they are to be drawn. This is flung out with the statement that he did not believe there would be very much work for this Commission. The Minister reiterated to-day that he has not had evidence produced to him of a prima facie type establishing profiteering. Is the Minister prepared to consider on Report an amendment substituting sub-section (4) by what I have said? Is he prepared to consider on Report an amendment of this type:—"That every ordinary member will hold office for a specified term not less than one year, and during that specified term he may not be removed except for cause stated to the Dáil and approved by Resolution of the Dail?"
This Commission will be set up by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to carry out for that Minister certain investigations. The Commission will then report to the Minister. I am not prepared to accept an amendment of the kind indicated. It is quite right and proper that the members of the Commission should be removed by the Minister if their removal is necessary to enable investigation to proceed in a proper manner and with the necessary expedition.
The Minister is not prepared to have an obligation put upon himself to come to the Dáil and state why the investigations are not proceeding properly through one member. That is what it comes to.
The fact is that objecting to sections of this Bill really brings home to one more and more how fundamentally rotten the Bill is and how dangerous it is. We used to regard as one of the bogeys in our youth a person who was known as "Peter the Packer." It was regarded as a great instrument of oppression on the part of the British Government in this country to pack a jury. You did not pay the jury. They simply got into the jury box and their only inducement to hang you was that it would get them out quicker than if they disagreed. But the Minister, under Section 9, when he proposes an investigation into the price of any particular commodity, can promptly appoint extra persons to the already established Commission to hear that particular case. The danger in that is obvious. If the Minister has already five people on it, in 99 cases out of 100 he would simply appoint one or two more who would be specially qualified to deal with some particular commodity. But it does not give him the power to do this. If, for some unscrupulous reason, he desires to discredit some particular merchant or manufacturer, he could arrange that an inquiry would be launched by this Commission and persons could be appointed with a certain knowledge with the deliberate intention of overbearing the Commission and with the purpose present to his mind. Ordinarily, when he appoints his five Commissioners, they are persons whom he will appoint for general qualities, such as one being a good accountant, another a lady with a wide experience of shopping, a lawyer and so forth. Having, according to himself, provided a Commission giving scope for a reasonable representation of relevant interests, he takes further powers to put on special members in special cases. Normally, that power will not be wrongly used, but it can be, in the hands of the Minister, a weapon of great oppression and of great danger. The tragedy of this is that a price-fixing Bill looks a mild thing, a thing that can really hurt nobody except the wicked profiteer. As a matter of fact, it can become an instrument of very grave oppression. In this particular case, if the section were being used by an unscrupulous Minister, it could be used to the very grave detriment of the citizens of the State, who would have very little power to defend themselves against him.
I think the Deputy's trouble is that he has not grasped the fact that this Commission is appointed for the purpose of carrying out, on behalf of the Minister, certain investigations and reporting to the Minister.
I grasp it very well.
Therefore, the power is given to the Minister to appoint the members of the Commission, and Section 9 is inserted to ensure that, whenever there is an investigation of a kind that will require specialist knowledge, a person with that knowledge can be added to the Commission. It seems to me eminently reasonable that power to appoint these temporary members with specialised knowledge in certain special circumstances should exist. Section put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I should like to ask the Minister if he has made up his mind that it is really essential to the success of the Commission that the members should be permanent. I do not know that we have any evidence before us which would lead us to the conclusion that a permanent Commission is absolutely essential. The Minister might, as he is aware, set up a Commission for a period of three or five years. If, at the end of that period, the Minister thought that the circumstances justified the continuance of the Commission, he would have power to continue it. I think it is hardly wise for the Minister at this stage to express the opinion that a permanent Commission is necessary. I do not think that the Minister has such evidence before him as would justify him in coming to the conclusion that a permanent Commission is essential. At least, if he has, he has not expressed it.
Could the Minister give the House any information as to the salaries to be paid to the members of the Commission?
Deputy Good's point hardly arises on this section. Under Part 5 of the Bill it is intended that the Commission should carry out a more or less continuous investigation of the prices charged by manufacturers for protected commodities. I think it is eminently desirable that there should be a permanent body in existence to watch the course of prices in respect of protected commodities, a body that will report to the Minister when anything unusual occurs or where, in their opinion, an unnecessary increase in price takes place so that, if necessary, action can be taken. The position is quite different in respect to the functions of the Committee under Part 3 of the Bill. It would suffice there, perhaps, to have a body that could be brought into existence whenever there was a case for investigation. But under Part 5 of the Bill I think a permanent body is necessary at present. When we have had experience of its working we may reconsider the position as to whether the Bill is necessary or whether it can be modified in any way.
Deputy Cosgrave's point does not arise on this section, but on the following one. We hope to secure—this is a point that Deputies who have spoken earlier might note—that the members of the Commission will act without any remuneration. I do not think we will have much difficulty in that. But, of course, it is easy to conceive that it may be desirable to have a person with legal training or an accountant of high standing in his profession a member of the Commission. In such a case it would be unreasonable to expect that they would give the time necessary without some remuneration. Consequently, power is taken to pay that remuneration where necessary, but we hope to be able to get members to act without any remuneration.
At the outset I think it would be well if the Minister were to fix a limited period during which the members of the Commission would act. If the Minister were to adopt that suggestion it would, I think, make his task easier in getting members to act. I am sure, as the Minister says, it may be possible to get citizens to discharge these duties in an honorary capacity. It would be much easier, I think, to get citizens capable of discharging these duties to act if they were not expected to continue as permanent members. If the period of membership were to be, say, for three to five years I think it would be much better. It may not be an easy matter at all to get citizens suitable for the position to act on a permanent body. I think that at the outset at all events the Minister ought not to make it a permanent body.
It is quite clear that there is power to do that under the Bill as drafted.
Until the Minister has had some experience of the necessity for such a Commission, I think he ought not to make it a permanent body. I think it is undesirable to do so.
I think the Minister's references to the question of examining the prices of the protected commodities was slightly irrelevant on this section. I think it would have arisen more appropriately on an earler section.
No.
It strikes me as an extraordinary thing that the Commission should at one and the same time examine into the ordinary price of goods in retail shops and the commodity prices of protected manufactures. The class of person that would be useful for the one might be quite unsuitable for the other. I suggest that there are very few women who have had sufficient experience of prices, costings, etc., of a manufacturing business. They might be suitable for the other type of inquiry on the prices side. I think it is a ridiculous proposal.
On behalf of women I must disagree with the Deputy.
Is there any danger, under the terms of the Bill, of the Chairman and members of the Commission becoming established civil servants with pension rights?
None whatever.
Under this section is it the intention of the Minister, when inviting persons to become members of the Commission, to attach a salary in the first instance?
No.
I would like to know from the Minister why the word "substantially" is introduced into the section. It says: "Substantially interested in any industry." As the section reads a person investigating the price of a certain commodity might be in business dealing with one thing and might be a large shareholder in another industry taking in this commodity. I think if the word "substantially" were deleted the section would be improved.
If you deleted the word you could not for instance put anyone that eats bread on a Commission appointed to investigate the price of bread.
I think that is going to extremes.
It is necessary to have some qualifying word.
Would the Minister say what was the effect of the words in a marginal note of the section "prohibition of interested persons acting as members"? I do not know whether these words would leave the Minister in any difficulty at a later stage.
The section itself in fact prohibits a person substantially interested in any business from investigating the prices charged in that business. The important point is that it is the opinion of the Minister that will operate as the determining factor, whether or not a particular person is substantially interested in a business or not.
I want to assure the Minister that I did not raise the point with a view to limiting his discretion on the matter. I thought the matter might have escaped his attention. If, say, Joseph Rank could get a seat on a Board appointed to examine the flour milling industry without your noticing it all would be well. He would be subject to no penalty under the Bill, but if the Minister noticed it he was undone.
Is it the intention of the Minister to appoint an existing civil servant to the post of Controller of Prices? I would like to know what kind of person he has in his mind. Apart altogether from his statutory powers, the person appointed will have very considerable powers, and be a person of considerable influence. I would like to know what the Minister has in his mind with regard to the type of person to be appointed. Will it be a person from the existing Civil Service by way of promotion, or a person from outside?
My intention is to appoint a member of the existing Civil Service.
This section sets out that the Commission may make regulations for the governance of its own proceedings. There is no mention in any part of the section that the regulations are to be subject to the approval of the Minister, and as far as I can gather from the Bill they are not to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Commission can make regulations for the conduct of its business, but there is no obligation on it to submit these regulations for the approval of the Minister or of the House. That seems to be the position as far as I can gather from the Bill.
Subsequently the Commission is given power to enforce the attendance of witnesses, to examine them on oath similar to the powers vested in the High Court, and subsequently again, the Commission may certify an offence to the High Court for punishment. It seems a rather strange thing that the Commission shall have power to make regulations, and may make regulations that may be unreasonable, yet a contravention of these regulations would be punishable by the High Court. It does not seem reasonable that these regulations should not be first submitted to the Minister, and secondly to the House by being published in the House. For example, the Commission may decide, at any given moment, to hold a meeting in public. It may summon Patrick Murphy to appear before it according to the regulations which it made. Patrick Murphy may think in his own interest that to give certain evidence in public he would be reported to the High Court. To my mind it is not clear, but perhaps the Minister has had legal advice as to how far the High Court is expected to make enquiry. "The High Court," it says in sub-section (2), Section 17, line 14, "may, after such inquiries as it thinks proper to make, punish or take steps for the punishment of that person." Would the High Court have power to inquire into and examine into the regulations that the person had contravened. My point is that the Commission itself makes regulations and that for the contravention of these regulations a man may be punished. In other words, the Commission is doing something that the House should only do; it is defining what should be punishable by law.
I shall look into the point whether there is any necessity to have these regulations approved by the Minister or laid before the House. The section there has power that has been given in a great variety of Acts. It appears specially in the Merchandise Marks Act; it is transferred from that measure.
Plus 17; it takes 16 and 17.
As far as 17 is concerned the offences are if any person summoned as a witness defaults in attending, or refuses to take an oath legally required by the Commission, or to produce any document in his power and control legally required by the Commission, or to answer any question to which the Commission may legally require an answer, or does any other thing which would, if the Commission were a Court of Justice, be contempt of such court. These are the only offences upon which a certificate can be issued. The other matters upon which the Commission may make regulations such as the holding of its sittings, the time of its sittings, do not arise. The Deputy has put his finger on a particular difficulty. That is the difficulty which arises when a person is summoned as a witness and, at a public sitting, is asked to give information concerning his own business which he does not wish to give in public. We will have that discussed again on an amendment tabled in the names of Deputy Good and Deputy Dockrell. We have tried to safeguard that position by putting in a rather elaborate provision prohibiting disclosure of things available only by virtue of the powers of obtaining information conferred upon the Commission. That is a matter that we will discuss later. But the particular point of having the regulations of the Commission subject either to the approval of the Minister or the Dáil is something that I shall look into. At the moment I am not clear as to the necessity or whether the particular point made by the Deputy is one inherent in the Bill or whether it does not necessarily arise out of the regulations, but out of the whole scheme.
There is one other point. If my recollection is correct I heard of a case in which some witness appeared before one of those statutory bodies and, refusing to answer a certain question, was committed. My recollection is that he was forgotten, and was in jail for a considerable time, so that I think there should be a time limit. It should not be for a longer time than the Commission lasts. My recollection is that this man was in jail long after the Commission passed out of existence.
That would be a difficulty in the High Court. We could not amend the powers of the High Court.
It was not for the High Court as long as the measure was in existence. This man was committed for contempt of the Tribunal and kept in prison after the Tribunal had passed out of existence.
Under what Government did that happen?
Under a much better one than the present one.
It had a good conceit of itself.
One other point—it all hangs together the section says: "The court may after such inquiry as it thinks proper to make." Is the Minister satisfied that that imposes no limitation upon the High Court.
Quite.
It can make no inquiries. The court cannot make any special inquiries into any regulations made by the Commission.
The regulations made by the Commission could not be nullified in consequence of some judgment of the High Court.
I move amendment No. 2. At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
"(3) In this section the word ‘person' includes a trade association and the representative of a trade association acting for such association."
I do not know how far I am preaching to the converted in proposing this amendment. Does the Minister realise that in these days when practically every trade has some sort of organisation, if he could get a trade to appear officially before him and to make representations, that if there is anything to investigate and anything to alter, an arrangement made officially with the trade could be more easily carried out, and would be less likely to lead to any misunderstanding or any feeling that the individual representative of the trade had allowed something to go by default, and that if he had realised the question that he was actually asked he might have made a proper submission of all the facts? I suggest to the Minister that in a case where he could get the representatives of the whole trade in front of him, and with the evidence submitted officially, the Commission will more easily and quickly arrive at a proper finding of all the facts.
The amendment is not necessary. Section 1 (c) of the Adaptation Act of 1923 enacts that the word "person" in every case shall include any body of persons corporate or incorporate. It appears that an association of the kind is covered by the word "person,"
In other words, it is quite clear that trade associations can appear and make representations.
Quite clear.
I move amendment 3:—
At the end of sub-section (2), line 42, to add the words:—Provided always that where a sitting of the Commission is held which is open to the public a report of the proceedings of such sitting may be published.
Owing to sub-section 2 there appears to be some ambiguity in the minds of many people as to how far the proceedings of the Commission may be made public. (Sub-section read.) As it stands that sub-section leaves it very indefinite as to what can be published, and I would like to get from the Minister some information as to whether this Commission will follow the procedure that was followed by the Tariff Commission, which was somewhat analagous. As the Minister will remember, the Tariff Commission held private sittings at which private matters were discussed in detail which it was not desirable to make public. The Commission at other times held public sittings. What this amendment aims at is, that the Press shall be at liberty to publish the proceedings of public meetings of the Commission.
I do not think the analogy of the Tariff Commission holds in this case. Obviously the inquiries that are going to be made by this Commission will be of a more intimate nature than those which the Tariff Commission had to conduct. There is a clear difficulty here which gave considerable trouble in the drafting of the Bill. If we were to accept the Deputy's amendment, and put in the proviso he suggests, the Commission, I think, would be compelled to hold private sessions every time they were examining a witness who was summoned to attend, and perhaps every time they were examining witnesses in relation to matters likely to be investigated by the Commission. The questions asked and the information given might be of a very confidential nature relating to the trade of the person concerned.
I agree.
Therefore, we put in this section, sub-section (2) of which makes it unlawful for any person present at a meeting of the Commission to make public "any information acquired through being present at such sitting and which is available only by virtue of the powers of obtaining information conferred upon the Commission or an inspector by this Act." It seems to me that that would preclude the reporting of any evidence given on oath, unless the Prices Commission and the witness agreed to its publication. In effect, by the section we are leaving the nut to the Commission itself to crack, and to make any regulations, in order to ensure a witness appearing before it against damage for publication of evidence. We are making it illegal for the public to give private information which the Commission obtained in exercise of its powers under this Bill. On the other hand I think it would be unwise to accept the amendment, because it would practically force the Commission always to sit in private. What we desire is that the Commission, in so far as possible, will do its work in public, while at the same time protecting the witness against damage for publication of the evidence. The Commission will have to reconcile these two things within the limits prescribed by the section.
I am very glad to hear the Minister say that publicity is desirable, because I think one of the great advantages of a Commission of this kind is wide publicity of the proceedings. We will all be in favour, at all events, of making the task of the Press as easy as we can, so as to get wide publicity. I am afraid under this sub-section as it stands the task of the Press will be exceedingly difficult. Is it the intention of the Minister that a report of the proceedings shall be supplied to the Press and that they shall not be at liberty to take their own report, which, as the Minister knows, is customary at such Commissions?
It would work out, in my opinion, by the Press reporting speeches made by counsel, and general statements of that kind, and also the evidence of witnesses, except the members of the Commission intimated in advance, or the witness requested the Commission to intimate in advance, that the evidence would not be published, in which case it would be illegal under the section for newspapers to report such evidence. It is obviously a matter in respect of which it is difficult to make a general rule, because one trader in a particular commodity might say that he had no objection whatever, while another trader in the same commodity might say that there were special reasons which made it desirable that the evidence would be heard in camera. The Commission has to try to adjust its proceedings, and to go into the difficulties of the situation, while, at the same time, we make it definitely illegal—except with the general consent of the people concerned—to give any information that the Commission obtained as a result of the exercise of its powers in Section 17.
I do not see how the Minister is going to solve the matter. I know some persons who would like to give evidence, and who would desire that that evidence would have the widest possible publicity. In fact, they would be disappointed if it did not get the fullest publicity. Other members of the Commission might consider that it might be undesirable to publish that evidence and there might be a difference between the witnesses and the Commission. In the circumstances, what is the Press to do? I think we should settle the matter. The procedure at previous Commissions has been settled and it should be settled in this case.
It was interesting to hear the explanation given by the Minister. I think this shows how different people get different impressions. Deputy Good stated that he was glad to see that the Minister desired publicity. I listened carefully to the Minister, and it struck me that the Minister was aiming precisely at the opposite. I am not entering into this in a political sense but, on reading the section, I understood that there is prohibition of publication. Just as a door must be open or shut, the meetings must be private or public. I do not understand how you are going to get over the situation. Take a country town where the Commission meets, and the Press is present, apparently members of the public may be present.
That is a matter for the Commission to make regulations about.
The Press may be present.
If the Commission so decides.
That is the whole difficulty. Can the Commission decide to hold a public session? If it does what will happen under sub-section 2 of this section? Anything that the Commission decides cannot override sub-section 2 of Section 19 when it is passed. This section prohibits the publication of the evidence. Practical commonsense tells us that if, in a country town, a meeting of the Commission is held at which persons other than officers of the Commission and witnesses are present, something almost as good as publication in a newspaper, in so far as that country town is concerned, will take place. That is absolutely certain. We all know what a country town is. If a local person is present at a meeting of the Commission in a country town, information as to what takes place at the Commission will go all over the place and in a much worse manner than if it were published in the newspapers. If it were published, publication would take place according to the ordinary practice of the Press, with certain exceptions, as, for example, when the "Irish Press" is reporting disturbances at political meetings. In the ordinary way, however, one gets some sort of accuracy in a Press report. What would appear to happen here would be: You would have Pressmen present but you would not get a Press report; you would get local rumours as to what happened at the Commission and the result, from the point of view of the trader or any interested party attending before the Commission, would be very much worse than if there was a newspaper report of the proceedings published. I think that, in the ordinary case, the result of the operation of this section would be more damaging to a trader than a fair newspaper report, such as would be given by any reporter and published by a local or Dublin newspaper. I realise the Minister's difficulty but I think that he is endeavouring to reconcile things that are really irreconcilable. Either the Commission should be given instructions to hold its meetings in private or it should be allowed to make regulations for holding its meetings in public. It should be provided in the Act that, in the case of a public meeting, a newspaper report may be published. Let these two kinds of meetings have their normal meaning and take their course.
As regards the speeches of advocates, I do not know what sort of regulations this Commission will make. They may allow counsel to appear before them. They may not allow anybody but counsel and witnesses to appear, or they may allow representatives of organised bodies—organised bodies of consumers, trade associations or trade unions—to appear before them. In that case, a speech made by such a representative would surely be privileged. That is to say, he would be allowed to make the same kind of speech as counsel would make in a court. If published, that might do considerable damage, because it might contain several accusations. If portion of it were published and the other portion withheld, you might get a very unfair result. I cannot understand how this section would work. I submit to the Minister that the Commission could not, by any kind of human ingenuity, make regulations which would enable them to hold meetings which would be neither public nor private.
I agree with Deputy Hayes that a sitting must be either private or public. After all, the Press ought to get a fair hunt. If they arrive at a Commission, find the doors shut in their faces and ascertain that it is a private sitting, if they publish anything about it, it is their funeral. Equally, if they arrive at a meeting of the Commission which is open to the public, they should be entitled to publish the proceedings. But it seems to me that the Minister envisages some sort of situation like this—that at a meeting where opening statements have been heard, and the evidence of A, B and C taken, it may be suggested that the evidence of D be treated as private. Is that the Minister's idea? If it is, I suggest that it is not quite fair. I do not know whether the Controller is to make that announcement or whether reference to the evidence of that party will appear later. I suggest that the Minister will have to make up his mind that the meetings of the Commission will be either public or private. He cannot have a mixture of the two.
There comes to my mind a situation that arose in regard to the Liquor Commission. A consumer appeared and gave evidence in which he assailed a company in a provincial town. He made very serious charges again them. The newspapers reported a very small part of the evidence in this case. The company which was assailed had to be communicated with. When their witness came to give rebutting evidence, the only way it could be done was by those of us on the Commission who had taken notes of the statements made asking him whether these statements were true or not. That opens up a question with which the Minister should try to deal. A notice had to be sent to this gentleman to say that his company had been assailed. When he came to rebut the accusation, he did not know what he had to rebut, because a full report had not been published. I think it is very difficult to decide whether the Commission should sit at certain times in private and at other times in public. I cannot make up my mind at the moment what would be the best procedure to adopt but I should like to secure that no charges could be made against a person or company without their getting a proper chance of stating their side of the case.
In the amendment which is in the name of Deputy Dockrell and myself, it is provided that where a sitting of the Commission is held which is open to the public, it should be permissible to publish a report of the proceedings. It is only with regard to a public sitting that this permission is given under the amendment.
That amendment does not, in my opinion, meet all the difficulties. What we want to ensure is that, so far as it is possible to do it, the proceedings of the Commission will take place in public, while at the same time ensuring that nobody who appears before the Commission and helps it by giving evidence will be prejudiced in their business or injured in any way as the result of their action.
We are with you in that.
It might be possible— I am prepared to consider how far it is possible—to insert provisions to enable the Commission to declare certain meetings to be public meetings which may be reported in full by Press reporters present and other meetings to be private meetings, publication of reports of which would be debarred under Section 2. If the Deputy will leave over his amendment until Report Stage, I shall have another effort made to solve the difficulty.
This is really the vital part: Suppose there is a session being held at which the confidential evidence the Minister is thinking of is to be given. The witness, when he comes to give that evidence, if the meeting is not called a private meeting, will say: "While I am giving this evidence, somebody in the neighbourhood who is really interested in what I am going to say may walk in." While the evidence may not be disclosed by the Press, it may be disclosed to a person to whom it will be of real importance and who may walk in at any moment. That will, undoubtedly, affect the evidence such a person will give. I do not think that there is any alternative to allowing confidential evidence of that kind to be given in private, if the person giving the evidence so claims. I ask the Minister to consider that point.
Those were the lines on which I was thinking of proceeding —to empower the Commission to declare, in respect of certain meetings, that there will be no limitation on the report of proceedings and, in respect of other meetings, that not merely will a report not be published, but that only particular persons shall be present when the evidence is being given. Under Section 16, the Commission has power to make regulations as regards the admission or exclusion of persons from the sittings.
Even part of one meeting should be provided for.
Yes, no doubt the regulations which the Commission will make will cover the various difficulties which will arise.
I am glad that the Minister has reconsidered this. Take it in the case of a private session where evidence of the nature mentioned by Deputy Thrift will be given. If serious charges are made against a number of persons in a district or town, or loose charges of profiteering, look at the position. A person comes in and makes these charges. Will there be an obligation on the Commission to see that these charges in detail are inquired into—not certainly the name of the person that made them, that is another matter, but at all events that they will be brought there knowing that these charges are made and that these traders will have an opportunity of rebutting them? If the Commission is to hear vague anonymous charges like that, will there be an obligation on them to bring that to the notice of the traders in pretty fair detail so that these people will have an opportunity of rebutting these charges?
I assume the Commission will do so, but there is no definite obligation upon them to do so. The Commission makes its own regulations governing its own procedure in these matters. It certainly has full power to ensure the attendance of everybody.
But it may lead to the ruin of a number of traders who may be quite innocent and who may not know that these charges are made. Is there any obligation on the Commission in that respect? If the Minister reconsiders this section he might reconsider that point as well.
Charges cannot possibly damage the traders unless they are published.
But the order may be made and they may not have been given an opportunity of rebutting them.
Yes, the Commission may make an order.
I am asking the Minister to reconsider that.
What the Deputy is suggesting is that some public notice should be given that these charges had been made.
And also that if a charge is made against a class or a shopkeeper in the town the Commission will notify that such a charge has been made and give an opportunity of rebutting it.
In view of the undertaking that the Minister has given I ask leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.
I move amendment 4:—
Before Section 21 and in Part II of the Bill to insert the following new section:—
(1) The Minister may appoint the Commission to hold a public inquiry for the purposes of Section 17 of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1932 (No. 19 of 1932), and whenever the Minister so appoints the Commission to hold any such inquiry, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) the Commission shall hold such inquiry;
(b) the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the following matters, that is to say, regulations for proceedings of the Commission, powers of the Commission, notices of investigation by the Commission and submissions by interested persons, prohibition on disclosure of information and annual reports by the Commission, shall not apply in respect of such inquiry.
Under Section 17 of the Housing Act of 1932 the Minister for Industry and Commerce has power to hold an inquiry into the prices charged for building materials. The purpose of this amendment is merely to provide that the Minister may appoint the Commission established by this Bill to hold that investigation. That Act gives him power to appoint a Commission to hold a public inquiry and have a report. This is intended for the purpose of enabling the Minister to appoint a Commission to hold a public investigation subject to this, that the regulations for the proceedings of the Commission, powers of the Commission, notices of investigation by the Commission, and submissions by interested persons, prohibition on disclosure of information and annual reports by the Commission shall not apply in respect of such inquiry. The only provisions that can apply in respect of such inquiry are those contained in the Housing Act. It is clear that the Minister could appoint five individuals constituting the Commission to hold the inquiry under the Housing Act, but he could not appoint the Commission itself without this amendment. The Minister will have the staff of the Commission as well.
But there is no obligation on the Minister to appoint the Commission because it appears to me that the problem will be entirely different. Of course it may be within the jurisdiction of the Commission to deal with these problems but the ordinary cases will be quite different from the problems they will have to deal with under the Prices Commission.
It would be quite possible under the Housing Act. Then the Minister may use the Commission and its machinery to carry out that investigation.
Does that mean that the Commission could not hold a private session?
It means that they would have to act in the manner prescribed by the Housing Act. We could not amend the Housing Act by an amendment here. One thing we can do is that the Commission may hold an investigation but it must be in accordance with the provisions of that Act.
I move amendment No. 5:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) Before sending under the immediately preceding sub-section a request to the Commission to make an investigation into the price (whether retail or wholesale) of butter the Minister shall first consult the Minister for Agriculture."
This amendment and the majority of the remaining amendments all relate to the same thing. They are designed to secure that before an investigation of the wholesale prices of butter shall take place, the Minister shall consult with the Minister for Agriculture. This is required in consequence of the powers conferred upon the Minister for Agriculture in connection with the Bounty Bill. These are drafting amendments but they are intended to safeguard the Minister.
I move amendment 6:—
In sub-section (2), page 7, line 21, to insert after the word "make" the words "subject to the provisions of the next following sub-section." This amendment is consequential.
I move amendment No. 7:—
At the end of the section to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"(3) Where a representation under the immediately preceding sub-section relates to the price (whether wholesale or retail) of butter, the Commission shall refer such representation to the Minister for Agriculture and shall not make any investigation into the subject matter of such representation except with the consent of the said Minister."
I move amendment 8, which is consequential:—
In sub-section (1), page 8, line 4, to insert after the word "fit" the words "and subject to the provisions of this section."
I move amendment 9:—
In sub-section (2), page 8, line 11, to insert after the word "fit" the words "and subject to the provisions of this section."
I move amendment 10:—
"To insert at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(5) Before making a price order in relation to butter the Minister shall first consult the Minister for Agriculture."
I move amendment 11:—
To insert at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Before making an order under this section revoking or amending a price order in relation to butter, the Minister shall first consult the Minister for Agriculture.
I move amendment 12:—
Before Section 27 and in Part IV of the Bill insert a new section as follows:—
The Controller shall not do any act or thing or make a certificate under this Part of this Act in relation to the price (whether wholesale or retail) of butter except he is authorised in writing by the Minister for Agriculture to do such act or thing or make such certificate.
I move amendment 13:—
Before Section 31 to insert a new section as follows:—
(3) Whenever a price certificate in force in relation to a scheduled commodity has been served on any person who carries on any business by way of trade or gain and such person is satisfied that the price fixed by the Controller is not a fair price for such commodity, such person, or the trade association of which he is a member, may send a representation in a form to be prescribed to the Commission for an investigation into the price of such commodity and thereupon the Commission shall hold such an investigation and pending the result thereof the said price certificate shall not take effect.
I am disposed to accept this amendment, in principle, but, if the Deputy will withdraw the amendment, I will produce an amendment on Report Stage which will, I think, serve the purpose he has in mind.
With permission, I withdraw.
I move amendment 14:—
Before Section 32 and as a new Part of the Bill to insert the following section:—
PART V.
Display of Retail Price Lists in Shops.
(1) The Commission may make a report (in this Part of this Act referred to as price list report) to the Minister stating that in their opinion it is desirable, in the public interest, that the Minister should make an order under this Part of this Act requiring every person who carries on the business of selling retail either (as may be specified in such report) at any place in Saorstát Eireann or at particular places in Saorstát Eireann any scheduled commodity or commodities to display at the premises where such person carries on such business a list stating the retail price of such commodity or commodities.
(2) Every report under this section shall specify:—
(a) the reasons why the Commission consider it desirable that the order the subject of the report should be made;
(b) a specification of every commodity to which the proposed order should relate;
(c) the date on which the Commission recommend the proposed order should come into force, and the duration of such order;
(d) the area to which the Commission recommend the proposed order should apply;
(e) the manner in which the Commission recommend that the proposed order should require the price list of every such commodity to be displayed.
During the discussions on the Second Reading, I announced that we had been giving consideration to the possibility of providing that, in certain circumstances, traders would be required to publish a notice indicating the price they were charging at the time for certain commodities. I also indicated the various difficulties we foresaw would arise if we had a general provision in relation to the publication of prices—the variety of commodities, the difficulty of distinguishing one quality from another and the fact that a regulation which would apply in one area, and which could be enforced in one area, might not be applicable to the circumstances of another area at all. We have endeavoured to get over these difficulties in the way set out in the amendment, in which we enabled the Commission to make a report on the question as to whether it is, in their opinion, desirable that an order should be made by the Minister requiring the publication in a specified manner of prices relating to specified commodities in specified districts. In other words, we provide that no order, requiring publication of these prices, will take place until an investigation into the matter has been made by the Commission and a report furnished. The report will indicate the reasons why it is considered desirable that an order should be made. It will specify the commodity or commodities to be covered by the order, the date on which it should come into operation, and the area in which it should operate, and, of course, and this is a matter of considerable importance, the manner in which the price list in respect of the commodities concerned is to be displayed. There is a feeling in a number of quarters that the publication of these price lists would conduce to better shopping on the part of sections of the community. Deputy Sir James Craig quoted a statement, made by a member of the Commission on which he served, that if people would only use the necessary diligence while shopping there would be no profiteering and they could procure supplies at the lowest prices. It may help to develop that attitude, because shoppers, by requiring in respect of certain commodities, where it is feasible to do so, the shopkeeper to publish in some particular manner, outside or inside his shop, a notice indicating the price at which that commodity is on sale on the day on which the notice is displayed. It will then be feasible for people without undue difficulty, or without placing themselves in circumstances of undue embarrassment, to ascertain, in respect of that commodity in a number of shops, the price at which it is available and that might tend undoubtedly to induce the necessary element of competition and reduced prices. We are, however, putting the onus on the Commission of finding a way out of the various administrative difficulties which it is easy to foresee.
It is very easy for the Minister to read it off and to say that it is easy to foresee administrative difficulties. There are certainly going to be administrative difficulties from the point of view of his Department. but the more I listen to the Minister talking about this Bill, the more it is driven in upon me that the Minister has allowed himself to be manoeuvred into the position of regarding the mercantile community in this country as a gang of desperadoes. Every kind of harassment is to be allowed under his æs, and the latest performance is this list of prices. Now, I have the most profound respect for the experiences of Deputy Sir James Craig in most matters to which he refers in this House, but he is not a merchant, and I do not think he can be familiar with the variety.
That is all the better from the point of view of my judgment.
I do not know so much about that, but if I started to give Deputy Sir James Craig a brief lecture on the best way to treat typhoid fever——
I would not listen to you.
He would not listen to me, and very properly, but, similarly, when he proceeds to tell me that his detachment helps him to form a true judgment of the difficulties of the mercantile community, he must pardon me if I do not listen to him. The existing Schedule provides that the Commission will take into consideration articles used as food, clothing, material for clothing or fuel. It is manifestly absurd that a schedule of prices should be put up about clothing. "This shop sells trousers at 3/6"— that is manifestly ridiculous. "This shop sells navy blue serge for 7/11"— that is manifestly absurd and, obviously, this proviso cannot apply there. It is meant to apply in respect of foodstuffs. I know that the Minister is acquainted with certain branches of what may be described as the dry goods trade, but I do not know that he is acquainted very extensively with the food and provision trade. If he were acquainted with it, he would know that, in the principal items of the food and provision business prices vary from day to day and week to week, and an order is to be made requiring.
every person who carries on the business of selling retail, either at any place in Saorstát Eireann or at particular places in Saorstát Eireann, any scheduled commodity or commodities, to display at the premises where such person carries on such business a list stating the retail price of such commodity or commodities.
Is the suggestion here that the retailer —I assume it only applies to retailers —should expose a list of prices at which he is retailing on any given day? Suppose the Commission fixes a price, say, for Indian meal. That is the fixed price in that area. They can fix a price for a given area——
A maximum price.
They can fix a maximum price in that given area. Presumably, it will be against the law for anybody to sell Indian meal for anything over or above that price in that area, even though the price varies to such an extent that it becomes necessary to sell at an increased price. Without further reference to the Commission, the sale of Indian meal must stop in that area until a further order is made revising the price. I see now, on closer study of the section, that it simply puts an obligation on a man to schedule his prices for certain commodities. I confess that when I first read the section I thought it meant that the Minister might fix a certain price which a person would have to display, but it simply requires the publication, in a form to be prescribed, of the prices he is actually charging?
Yes.
I withdraw, then.
It is like the Electricity Supply speech.
I hope it is more intelligent than the Parliamentary Secretary's contribution to the debate.
I want to ask a question on Section 32, line 48. The section reads: "The Minister may from time to time send to the Commission a requisition requiring the Commission to investigate the price charged for any protected commodity which conforms to the specimen set out in such articles by persons manufacturing such commodities in Saorstát Eireann." Would the Minister explain what the words "which conforms to the specimen set out in such articles" mean? It appears to me as if that phrase were superfluous.
Well, no. It might be considered necessary to investigate the price charged for one particular class of article, which would be in a general range subject to the term "protected commodity." For example, it might be decided to investigate the price of agricultural labourers' boots without at the same time carrying out an investigation into the entire range of boot and shoe prices. That is why the qualifying words are put in there.
That settles it.
I move amendment 21:—
In sub-section (1), page 12, line 26, to insert after the word "fit" the words "and subject to the provisions of this section."
I am prepared to accept the amendment on principle and I will have it included.
In the circumstances, I ask the leave of the House to withdraw it.
