I move that the Bill do now pass.
Control of Prices Bill, 1932—Final Stage.
Before the Bill passes I should like to say a few words on it in general, and upon the principles involved in it. Those of us who have listened to the case put forward by the Minister were struck by the fact that he really attempted to do only one thing not to prove that the Bill was necessary, not to prove that the extended powers claimed in it were necessary or would be useful. At the very most all that he attempted in the course of various replies to different questions and to arguments, both on the Second Reading and on the Committee Stage, was to put forward reasons why he should be given certain powers of investigation. On the different Stages the Ministers confessed again and again that he had no evidence to show that there was any profiteering in this State. Certainly he had no evidence that there was a large amount of profiteering. All that he wanted, or attempted to justify, was an assumption of power by the Government to investigate certain complaints of profiteering that he said he had received. But if anybody looks at the Bill he will see that the powers actually taken by the Minister under it go a great deal further than any mere process of investigation. In one of his speeches I think the Minister made the rather surprising statement that even if there was in certain cases profiteering up to the present, the State would require this Bill as a perpetual measure, so as to be able to investigate complaints—whether they were ill-founded or not no one could say—that might be made about profiteering in the future.
The Minister, I think, on other occasions during the passage of this Bill said that he does not expect Part 4 to be widely used. That is the part that deals with investigation into prices charged by individual traders for certain goods that they are selling. I wonder why he does not expect that portion of the Bill to be much used. Whether it is because he really believes that—and there is evidence in the various statements of the Minister to show that that is his real belief—that there is not much profiteering actually in the State, so far as traders are concerned, or whether he believes that the mere fact, when this Bill becomes law, that a committee is set up and that powers are given to it and to the inspectors, would have the immediate effect of preventing whatever profiteering there may be, about which the Minister does not care to pledge himself one way or another, I cannot say. But surely when we consider the situation of the ordinary shopkeeper and of the ordinary trader at the present time with, especially at the present moment, a diminishing market, with the difficulty of getting customers of any kind to deal with him, owing to circumstances which we need not now discuss, owing to the fact, into the causes of which we need not inquire, that the purchasing power of the ordinary person has declined rather considerably in recent times—the mere existence of competition in these circumstances would be sufficient in itself to prevent any undue profiteering or any attempt at unfair charging on the part of the traders.
So far as this Bill is concerned, there are two possibilities. These two possibilities have been considered by the Minister and have been put up in the course of the discussion of this Bill. One is the possibility that the Bill may prove unworkable. Many examples have been quoted to show that such attempts in other countries in the last few years have proved unworkable and suggesting that that may be the fate of this Bill.
But there is another possibility, and that is a possibility that I should like the House to consider before giving its final consent to this Bill. That is, that the Bill may prove an instrument of great oppression in its operation, that it may so interfere with the ordinary business of the ordinary trader—and I am speaking now not of a person making any unfair profits, but of the ordinary most conscientious trader in the country who finds it extremely difficult in the present circumstances with credit short and with the necessity of giving credit to many of his country customers — that it may prove exceedingly oppressive so far as that particular man is concerned. I am dealing, as I said, not with the person who makes undue charges or who is in any sense guilty of profiteering; but what I think the House has not sufficiently considered is the effect of this Bill, if it is operated in any real sense, on the most honest trader in this country through this continuous interference with his business. The mere fact, as is contemplated in Section 4 of this Bill, that a charge has been made and investigated will be a detriment to him in his business. Anybody who knows the ordinary life in a country town will know perfectly well that the mere fact of a charge having been made and an inspector being sent down—the Minister himself acknowledged it—is bound to be detrimental to the business of that particular man. It is not a question here at all of catching a profiteer. It is a question of this Bill, if it is to be operated, being used in a manner that can easily prove to be tyrannical. I quite admit that Bills of this kind have proved themselves incapable of being worked, but there have been examples also of Bills of this kind being used as potent weapons of tyranny by individuals with such power given into their hands by the authorities. Let anybody ask themselves, looking over this Bill, what the Government expects the Committee to be able to do; what extraordinary ability they expect from the Controller or even from the Inspector?
I put a question during the Report Stage to the Minister, when there was a question of a reasonable price, and I asked the Minister what did that mean? Did it mean an average price for the district, a reasonable price, when every business in that particular district was taken into account; or did it mean, as apparently it ought to mean in justice, a reasonable price to the particular man in the particular business that was being investigated? Did it mean a reasonable price, considering all the factors that went to the fixing of that price without any desire on the part of that trader to charge a halfpenny more than he was charging? How could an inspector who has to investigate several types of business, a drapery business on the one hand, a grocery on the other and various other types of business form any opinion of what is a fair price in every individual case of any particular business? He has to go into the outlays of that man, the efficiency or inefficiency with which the business is being run. He has to go into the question as to the wisdom or not of the bargains the man has made in buying his goods. He has to go into countless matters about which even the business man himself, as every man knows, is incapable of giving a full and satisfactory account, who does not know it from information. And yet, an inspector, paying that man a casual visit, is expected to make a report about the business to the Controller, and on that report the Controller will fix what he considers to be a fair price, or at least will put it up to that trader that he is not selling the article at a reasonable price. Either that portion of the Bill will be completely inoperative or else some rule-of-thumb, some general average rule, may be adopted which may prove to be exceedingly unfair to the individual trader. It may be because he is less efficient in running his business or that the business is on a larger scale and he employs a larger number of people. What is a fair price, for instance, to a person running his business with his own family may be less remunerative for a man running his business with a large staff. Does anyone visualise that an inspector is really in the position of being able to give a valuable report to the Controller on the strength of which the Controller can really give any valuable decision on the case in point? It was easy for the Minister, when these difficulties were put up, instead of defending what was in the Bill to adopt a rather propagandist attitude and speak of the profiteers. There is no question here about the profiteers at all. The question is about the possible damage that this may do to the ordinary business community in this country in the effort—probably the vain effort—to get after a few profiteers, so far as they exist. The Minister himself has said that the vast bulk of the traders are honest and yet, in order to get after the few profiteers that may exist—he does not even say they do exist—these extreme powers, which may be tyrannically used, and even if they are not used that way, even if they are used effectively—these extreme powers are given for a vague cause and in fact, without any real cause given at all.
I should like to ask the Dáil not to be led away by mere propaganda in this particular matter. It is not a question of saving the person who dishonestly charges too much or who is guilty of what is generally called profiteering. Merely in order to catch a couple of hypothetical profiteers, or whose existence is hypothetical, the ordinary business community may be interfered with to such an extent that they may have, in some cases, to retire from business. These powers can be so used.
It may be that Deputy Dillon's view of the Bill is sound; that it is mere eye-wash; that it is not intended to work; that it is merely intended to make it an Act of Parliament; that in reality, beyond appointing the various officials necessary, nothing more will be actually done. The Minister himself has on more than one occasion given it as his opinion that very little use will be made of Part IV of the Bill, which is, in some respects, the most extraordinary part of the Bill. Anybody who knows the way in which people, especially in country towns, make complaints, will know that complaints are bound to come in continually, complaints not on their face absurd, but reasonable cases for investigation. Are they to be thrown aside merely on account of their number, or are they to be seriously investigated? If they are to be seriously investigated, this Bill can have a deplorable effect, as far as I can see, on the business of the country. Not merely that, but even if the Bill is operated in that way, though it may damage business seriously, I do not believe that it will succeed in bringing down prices. It has been suggested that it may have the opposite effect; that the mere fact of fixing maximum prices may have the effect of sending prices up to that particular maximum. I myself warned people, when passing a Bill through this House, that one of the effects of fixing a minimum school age of fourteen would be that a large number of people would regard it as a maximum. That particular view was scoffed at at the time, but a couple of years afterwards I had to listen to complaints that, unfortunately, in many parts of the country, what we put down as the minimum school age was regarded as the maximum, and the very fact that a child was fourteen years of age was given as sufficient reason why it should no longer go to school. The same thing may happen here.
No matter how strongly and how stringently this Bill is operated I do not believe it will bring about any reduction in prices. It may have the opposite effect by interfering seriously with business. It may have that effect directly and indirectly. What I am sure of is that if the Bill is operated it will be a severe drag on the ordinary honest business man. It is not the profiteer who will be hurt. As was pointed out to-night, the man who is determined to be dishonest under this Bill can escape. He can promise to do certain things and, as the Minister acknowledged, there is no penalty if he does not keep the promise. It is the honest man who will be hit by the Bill. When a particular man promises to charge a reasonable price, the Minister was asked what would happen if the man did not honour his promise, and all he could say was that there will be another investigation and then another investigation. There can be no publicity; there is no penalty attached to breach of the promise. In various other ways it is quite clear that under this Bill it is the honest trader who will be hit and the dishonest trader who will get off scot free. That is one of my main objections to the Bill.
The Minister generally takes up the line that, because it is said the Bill will not be effective, therefore the other fears that it will be oppressive are groundless. In reality, it can be both ineffective and oppressive; ineffective in so far as it will do a great deal to interfere with the ordinary trader in the transaction of his business and very often make it practically impossible for him, if the inspector is not a person of very great tact and ability indeed. How the Minister is to get inspectors of that particular type I do not know. If, as the Minister said, he has no evidence of profiteering, if he believes that the vast bulk of the traders are honest, then I say he is doing a great disservice to the vast bulk of the traders and he is doing a service to nobody. I admit that, from the point of view of mere window-dressing, something is served by the Bill. A number of people will be persuaded that with the passage of the Bill prices will fall and that the thing for which a shilling is now charged will be got for sixpence. Experience, I fear, will soon prove there is no foundation for that belief. As I say, if the Bill is worked, I am afraid experience will prove that it will severely interfere with and hamper the ordinary trader and business of this community.
As a trader, I should like to make a few remarks on this Bill. I consider that the Bill is a farce, and that those who brought it forward do not know anything about business in the country. They may know something about education and other matters, but they know nothing about business. It is admitted that there is no profiteering. Why then is the Bill being brought forward? It is being brought forward in order that they may be able to appoint a staff of inspectors to go around the country at our expense.
To catch thieves.
Everybody knows the position in which shopkeepers are at present in the country. Some Deputies know very well that they are under an obligation to some shopkeepers and they may say now, "I defy the shopkeeper to issue a writ against me now, he cannot claim anything." I have experience of business, which some Deputies have not, except that they may owe debts to shopkeepers. There are several Deputies on the Opposition Benches who owe debts, and they may be seeking to get out of them. They may be expecting later on to get a nephew or somebody else appointed as an inspector under the Bill. That is what the Bill is intended for. Deputies may have seen the number of failures that have taken place all over the country. I am sure they are not altogether on the Cumann na nGaedheal side. I am sure they are on the other side also. They are getting off with 2/- and even with 1/6 in the £. I say that this Bill is brought in to create jobs for the followers of the present Government.
You backed the wrong horse.
I say that fixed prices will do away with competition. When a pound of jam is sold at 10d. all over the country it will do away with competition. I would be glad if there were fixed prices. The shopkeeper would be able to get a greater profit than he does at present if there were a price fixed on his goods. My experience during the Great War, when prices were fixed, was that we were allowed a better price for our goods than when we were in competition with other traders. The whole thing is a waste of time. The only result will be that you will have a staff of 300 or 400 inspectors going round the country, just, like they are under the Egg Production Act. A batch of inspectors will be appointed at big salaries at the taxpayers' expense. It is admitted by the Minister that there is very little profiteering. Why, therefore, is the Bill introduced? I understand that there is a Commission to be set up under the Bill and that will cost something. Instead of going on with more valuable business, the Government have introduced this Bill, which, in my opinion, is a farce.
I sympathise with the wish expressed by Deputy Professor O'Sullivan that as little use as possible may be made of this Bill. I hope there may be very little need to apply it when it becomes an Act. It is not the type of State interference that one gladly welcomes. While I am glad it is being passed, I think at the same time its principal use will be to satisfy an idea that so generally prevails, that many shopkeepers are mulcting their customers, that they are taking unnecessary profits and are using every opportunity to profiteer. My real purpose in rising is not to attempt a defence of the Bill. That should be easy, seeing that the Opposition found it is so technically perfect that they are not able to put forward any amendment. I want to refer to a statement the Minister made when he was questioned as to the probable cost of administering this measure. He estimated the cost at about £4,000. At the same time, he said it was rather difficult to arrive at an estimate. I think that it is very likely to be much more than that amount, and that it may easily reach four times that amount.
I want to appeal to the Minister not to let the fact that he put the estimate so low as £4,000 influence him in the appointment of the Commission. In the appointment of the Commission he could easily be tempted, with a view to keeping the expense of administration down, to appoint mediocrities rather than have to pay people who would be more competent. Very grave danger could arise out of that. I think the application of the measure will want to be done very carefully. If done loosely, if loose judgments are arrived at, if there were any loose decision by the Commission or by the Controller, it would have a very bad effect, not so much on business as on the individual businessman. It is for that reason I would like to see the Minister appointing absolutely the most competent people, even if he has to pay rather high salaries to them. I am sure the benefit to the community would be much more than repaid. It is no good saying that this is a plea for extravagance or anything of that kind. The benefit to the community will be much greater if the people in charge of the administration of the measure are so competent that nobody will have any reason to doubt their judgments.
One must realise the enormous task it will be to examine into the accounts of any shopkeeper. To take stock of his actual circumstances, one would have to go almost into his domestic circumstances as well as his business circumstances. When one imagines what a very delicate task that would be, it is quite evident that only people who are amongst the best trained in the community will be capable of administering the Act. It is because of that, and because, too, I remember noting the very low figure the Minister estimated as the probable cost of administering the Act, that I rise to appeal to him not to be influenced by the fear of a taunt such as "Here is an Act costing £20,000 and you said it would cost only £4,000." I appeal to the Minister not to let any fear of such an accusation or taunt as that influence him in the appointment of the people who are to have charge of this very important measure.
I hope there will not be much occasion to use the Bill. I think when it is passed it will probably have a very good effect on the business community. It will deter those—if there be such; I am not competent to speak on the subject, because I have not definite knowledge—who are often represented to be profiteers. Every one of us hears the charge made every day in the week of excessive profits, and if there be such people in the community, I think they are very likely to consider their position under this Act, and they will not run the risk of prosecution and exposure. If that takes place the Bill will have served a good purpose. I hope that will be the effect of it, rather than that it will become a definitely established and regular part of our Government routine.
I used to hear the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, when he was in Opposition, say that it was an easy matter to determine whether a Bill came from the Department of Industry and Commerce, when I presided over it, because one had merely to go through the measure to see whether the word "may" had, generally in the operative sections, replaced the word "shall." Then he could tell that it had proceeded from me. This Bill goes a step further. We have hardly a "shall" right through, but we have "may," with the words added, "if he thinks fit." The whole thing is left to the Minister's discretion, except one remarkable point. Even if a person is able to found a good complaint about overcharging for such a necessity of the people as butter, no action can be taken under this Bill by the Commission, the Controller or the Minister, until the Minister for Agriculture has been appealed to.
There are four parts in the Bill. One deals with the general level of retail and wholesale prices. The machinery of investigation under this Bill is there started either by the Minister or by a complaint made to the Commission. If it is the latter of these two things the Commission cannot act until it considers whether it is in the public interest to act. When we come to the simple matter of overcharging by traders, the machinery of the Bill is put into operation by a complaint only, without any investigation or any submission as to whether it is in the public interest or not. It is to be done by the Controller, who is not a member of the Commission, who cannot administer an oath and cannot, consequently, take evidence on oath. When it is a question of the displaying of lists of retail prices, then the Commission only may act. When we come finally to the investigation of the prices of protected commodities, in which there is most reason to fear an increase in price in this country, we find that a complaint has to go through the Minister. Having the attitude the present Minister has about protected commodities, we can realise how many complaints are going to get from him as far as the Commission.
The Commission is also authorised as part of its duty from time to time, and as the other business of the Commission permits, to select certain protected commodities and investigate prices. The Minister says that this is not going to be a full-time Commission. He hopes to get people to act without pay, and he does not estimate the expenditure under the whole thing, inspectors, prosecutions and everything, to be more than £4,000. This part-time Commission, acting without fee, is asked to investigate from time to time, as the other business of the Commission permits, the prices of protected commodities. The Bill is intended, in respect of protected commodities, as a bait to the community generally; but that is the part of the Bill which is least of all going to be put into operation.
There are many sections which, although I think in the main the measure is going to be futile, can lead to considerable oppression amongst the trading community. It is possible to have complaints made by individuals, and these complaints are to be investigated by a Controller who is not a member of the Commission, who cannot take evidence on oath, but who, nevertheless, after passing a complaint to an inspector, and getting a report, may damage a man irretrievably in his trade. Right through the Bill the question crops up: Is there or is there not profiteering in this country? There are no terms of reference given to the inspectors, to the Controller, to the Minister or to the Commission, as to what is to be considered profiteering.
Running through the Bill, there is the provision that these people are to determine, in all the circumstances, whether what is described as "an unreasonably high price" is charged. What are going to be the data on which that judgment as to the price being unreasonable is to be built up? It is not determined. There are no terms of reference given. The task is flung vaguely at a body of five or seven persons, of whose qualifications we have been told nothing. They are to act, as the Minister hopes, in an honorary capacity and they are to go into details of all the multitudinous business of this country, carried on under multitudinous conditions as regards overhead expenses, differing as they do, even from street to street as well as from town to town. They are to report whether the prices for all the variety of commodities in the schedule which "are used as food, clothing, material for clothing or fuel," and such other things as may, by order, be added to that list, are reasonable or unreasonable. An inexperienced, honorary body is to decide that and to determine, in fact, whether a man is to be put out of his business or not.
For what reason is this instrument of oppression being introduced? Deputy Corry remarked in an interjection "To catch thieves." During the debate on all stages of this measure, only two Deputies spoke as if they had any belief whatsoever that there was overcharging in this country. Deputy Murphy gave one example from a local authority. That was the only concrete example given. One other speech was directed against the so-called "profiteers" and the Deputy responsible for that speech was perfectly certain of his facts. He said:—
There is no doubt about it that scandalous profiteering has been going on. The unfortunate people are not getting fair play in any sense in this respect.
Then there is an allusion to the Tribunal on Prices, which said:—
We have satisfied ourselves that, in certain areas, consumers have to pay high prices for particular articles of food, bread, meat and milk, and that an excessive margin of profit is secured.
We get a rhetorical question then:
Is there any Deputy who will say that the price of bread in the last six or seven years has any relation whatever to the price of flour?
We get a calculation by that gentleman, who was so sure of his facts. On his examination, "made out in pints," by himself:
The brewer could afford to reduce the price of stout by 2½d. per pint and have the same profit as in 1920.
He goes further:—
A case can be made out not alone for this Bill but a case can also be made out for placing a lot of oily faced gentlemen in jail.
He speaks of shopkeepers who come in to start business in towns and he says that they are considered most unsuccessful if, after two years, they are not able to get a house by the seaside and a motor car to take them to town every day. Later, he speaks of unfortunate consumers who "are being fleeced, as undoubtedly they have been fleeced." He is disposed, in the end, to think that
A definite system of fines and a definite system of jail without fines for individuals who are found guilty of gross profiteering after they have received one warning
should be put into force. We have a reiteration of the statement that profiteering has been carried on "to a scandalous extent" by some shopkeepers. The Deputy winds up with this advice to the Minister for Industry and Commerce:—
I see some of these gentlemen who come into town very lean, who start operations very lean, and who grow big corporations in four months as a result of the prices they charge the poor. You would find that these corporations would go down very quickly if they got a spell inside a jail.
Then, there is this nasty jibe at the Minister for Industry and Commerce:—
I confidently recommend it to the Minister as a cure for profiteering.
That is Deputy Corry. That much might be understood from the language. He was the only Deputy who had any certainty as regards the practice of profiteering.
Let us hear the Minister for Industry and Commerce on this matter. Remember that, having heard what I have read from Deputy Corry, the Minister for Industry and Commerce can say: "There but for the grace of God and access to a few files, with a less limited capacity for understanding files than Deputy Corry, would be the Minister for Industry and Commerce." This is shown by his speeches in 1930 when there was as much thunder in the air about profiteering as the unfortunate Deputy Corry was able to get out on 19th October of this year. What did the Minister say about profiteering in introducing this Bill:—
Apart altogether from the fact that the general level of prices may be too high—
That is the greatest example of a fact I know—the fact that prices "may be" too high—
there is also reason to believe and numerous complaints have been received that particular retailers and particular wholesalers sell to particular individuals articles of common necessity occasionally at excessive prices.
Complaints have been received that certain people sell occasionally at excessive prices! Later, he says:—
There is no doubt that in this country because of the smaller number of industrial units which we have it is always possible for those industrialists who enjoy the benefit of a protective tariff to combine amongst themselves to exploit the market.
Then, hurriedly:—
I do not suggest that any evidence that such has happened to any extent is available. In one or two cases, there are circumstances which would indicate to me that the necessity for getting this Bill through quickly exists.
That is the Minister's case. From that, he concludes:
It is quite clear that there is necessity for this legislation.
Certain prices may be too high; complaints have been received that certain people occasionally charge too much; this is a small country with small industrial units and there is always the fear that those who enjoy protection will combine to exploit the market—that, the Minister says, "is the main justification for the Bill." Lest he had said too much about profiteering, although it was not very much—it certainly does not accord with Deputy Corry's views about profiteering—the Minister goes on:—
I am not really in a position to offer any solid opinion as to whether there is real foundation for some of the complaints which have been made. In so far as we have been able to carry out investigations, we have found that, undoubtedly, in a number of cases, particular shopkeepers did charge excessive prices.
We did not hear how many cases—
I do not say that we have found that the general level of prices has been unduly high. I mention the fact that there are one or two of the protected industries in respect of which I would like very much to see the position examined.
There is, then, the hurried reservation—
even though we are unable to say that excessive prices have been charged, because I am, nevertheless not satisfied with the information in my possession which goes to show that excessive prices are not being charged.
He goes on—
It is possible that they
That is the body which will go into the matter—
will find that my suspicions
Lest anybody should be offended, he says:
if I might use even so strong a term as that, are completely without justification.
But in the event of their finding the reverse, then we have this question of going further.
Later on, the Minister says:
I would like to say this, that our experience has been that, in the majority of cases, profiteering is not taking place.
And later on, he says:
It may be that in the course of a year or two, or in five years, circumstances will change and we may find ourselves in a position to repeal this legislation without incurring any danger. I hardly think that will arise so long as we are operating a protective policy, or so long as present circumstances continue. I think a necessary corollary to a protection policy is the introduction of legislation of this kind.
Then later on he went into a certain amount of talk as to the fact that we have too many distributors. That is not Deputy Corry. That is the Minister, though Deputy Corry need not be ashamed of what he said, for the Minister would have said as much if he were over here without having access to the files of information collected. We have the fact that the Minister has got to announce in bringing in this measure that he cannot see that there is any profiteering taking place—
I want to remind the Deputy that we are not now discussing the principle of the Bill. What we are discussing just now is what is contained in the Bill.
I submit I am discussing what is in the Bill.
No, the Deputy is discussing the principle of the Bill.
I was keeping closely to what is in the Bill.
The Deputy ought to pay the ordinary courtesy to the Chair.
On the Second Reading, as the Deputy knows, the principle of the Bill is discussed. On the Fifth Stage only what is in the Bill is discussed. I do not think we can go back now and discuss as to whether there is a necessity for the Bill or not.
I am keeping very close to what is in the Bill. I started off by pointing out what I considered to be very peculiar in the Bill. I pointed to sections that are likely to be oppressive, and with what the Minister envisaged in his own Second Reading speech. The Bill as it stands is founded upon a measure introduced in England. It is founded upon a Bill called the Consumers Council Bill, a Bill which never reached the Statute Book. That Bill is identical in four-fifths of its sections with this Bill. There are greater details in this measure, more elaborate machinery, but as far as the objectives are concerned four-fifths of it is an absolute copy of the Consumer's Council Bill introduced in the British House of Commons. What was the purpose of the Consumer's Council Bill? What is the necessity for the sections put in there? It was stated frankly by the Socialist Minister who introduced it that it was to give them an opportunity when they got a Socialist majority in that Parliament of taking over business. He said it was the thin end of the wedge or it was said for him. But he admitted that a measure of this kind controlling prices, when we could not control supplies, was unreasonable. He intimated that as soon as possible when a Socialist majority had been reached that supplies would be controlled and thereupon the Consumer's Council Bill would have the effect which he desired from it.
Is that the intention here? Is that the reason for this phrase about price fixing? I do not think anybody in this House would object to that portion of this measure which deals only with investigation, or with that portion which deals with investigation, with publicity and with price fixing. What is the purpose of price fixing and what is the possibility of price fixing working out to anything good if there is not control of supplies?
Those who have talked about the necessity for a measure of this kind, and particularly for the price fixing part of it, and based themselves upon the Report of the Tribunal on Prices, have completely missed the import of the Tribunal on Prices report. The Minister with the Report of the Tribunal on Prices before him, and Deputy Corry having quoted from it, brings himself in the end back to the statement that he had no ground for any belief that profiteering was taking place in the country. Did the Tribunal on Prices find a necessity for a measure of this sort? They ask for evidence, investigation.
The Minister said at an earlier stage that without this measure there was no machinery for investigating any complaint with regard to profiteering. I contradicted him on that. There is still, apart from this Bill, legislation in this country, which enables an investigation to be made. There is the Tribunal of Evidence Act, which was taken over with many statutes taken over here, and when a prima facie case has been established a Tribunal can be set up with every power, other than price fixing—the power which the Tribunal gives.
In addition, there is the Act of 1926, the National Emergency Act, which gives not merely what is in this Bill, but powers to control supplies. And yet the Minister tells us if this measure is not passed he has not the power to investigate complaints made and that he has not the power under which he could take action. Again, I tell him, we have both, and I tell him what they are.
The Tribunal on Prices did not find a necessity for any legislation of this sort. In fact, it recommended against legislation. It recommended that until the investigating machinery had been tried and found wanting that it was, in their opinion, undesirable to fix prices, and they gave reasons for that recommendation. Though one member of the Tribunal on Prices advocated the licensing of shops, the Commission as a whole reported that they found themselves unable to make recommendations in favour of that Appendix to the Report, which was put forward by one of its members.
The measure turns upon the determination of what is an unreasonable price. Is this lay body of five or seven people going to investigate the whole run of prices and the whole scheme of prices in the country? I suppose the Minister does know from his touch with business that there are varying rates of profit looked for in the normal way from business. I suppose he knows that certain people stock perishable goods and that they have on that account a fair amount of the stuff wasted. Such a trader will look for a profit of as much as 50 per cent. on what he sells. There are certain other lines of business where the stock is not perishable, in which the trader would be content with a profit of 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. Is that matter of the profit which a business is taking in the ordinary course to be looked into when this body of five or seven people is going to be looked into whether the price is reasonable or not? Bread was mentioned by Deputy T. Murphy but only one instance was given of profiteering by him. Is not the Minister aware that in the bread business the position is——
And meat as well.
Is not the Minister aware with regard to bread that it is a common habit with bakers to distribute broken bread at a very low rate to the poor and that even good firms distribute good wholesome bread —not even stale—at a very low rate to the poorer classes of the community? Does he not realise that the price the baker looks to get is the price he gets for all he bakes, not the price of what he sells to one section of the community? And is it not clear that, if we in any way interfere with this practice of the bakers of distributing bread to the poorer classes of the community, it will have a very serious effect on these people? If he goes to investigate and to interfere with the prices for which bread is retailed, he may, in the end, find that instead of bread prices being put up for the better class purchasers there will be a stoppage in the practice bakers have of distributing this type of bread to their poorer clients. I reminded the Minister before, at the time when he wanted to impose a sentence of jail on the person who overcharged for grape fruit, that I would like to hear whether that grapefruit was bought from a shop which sold fruit only or from a shop which sold fruit and vegetables. If that particular fruiterer or greengrocer had suffered an increase in his cost of living, would the Minister prefer that increased cost to be put on grapefruit rather than on vegetables?
There has been great clamour in this House as to the necessity for price fixing. An example has been given that in different streets in the same town articles are being sold with a great differentiation in price. The reply that might easily be made to that contention is that the articles are bought at that great differentiation in price, in spite of its not being conceivable that in a small town the fact that one shop in a different street was selling them at a much less rate was not known. Why do the people go to the shop which sells at the dearer rate? Because they are getting something else than the article that they buy. They are getting service of a type that they would probably not get in the other shops. They are probably getting credit for a longer time than they would get in the other shops. They are getting something different in the way of service, or if they are not getting that, there has to be some explanation as to why the dearer price is paid in a small town where the same article is sold—that is a contention put up—at a smaller price. The Minister will know that if this Committee were set up to base price fixing upon evidence which stops short at a particular price, they would certainly have to count people in the north side of the city as profiteers in certain articles, and they would have to count nearly every trader in the south side of the city as a profiteer in another sort of article. There was a very definite investigation made of that particular anomalous condition at one time, and what was discovered? There are certain traders who have a habit of selling one or two commodities, tea or sugar, at an extremely low rate, in order to get customers into their shops, and then they will more than make up for what they did not charge on tea or sugar by what they did charge on other articles. Similarly, in all areas of the city, the articles on which some traders are making little or no profit are the articles to which other traders look for their main profits. Are these unreasonable prices? Which is unreasonable in comparison with the other? Which is unreasonable from the point of view of the public getting robbed? Those are Deputy Corry's words—the thieves that have to be caught.
The only thing the Prices Tribunal Report established, and it is on that this Bill is said to be based, was that in the opinion of the Tribunal there were too many distributors in this country, and then they committed themselves to the peculiar statement that the fact that there were too many distributors meant that the price of goods retailed ordinarily in this country was too high. They made no relation of cause and effect between these two things. They stated two facts which they had found—that there were too many distributors in the country, and that as far as they could find out the prices retail generally were too high. Having stated these two facts, they proceeded to say that the one depended upon the other. Page 9 of the Report which contained that particular statement gives the result of a census of the number of shops in Saorstát Eireann, divided according to the Gárda Síochána divisions, and it shows two things—the shops kept by people who are shopkeepers only, and the shops kept by people with other means of livelihood. What emerges from the table? If you leave out Dublin and the two ridings of Cork— where presumably the professional shopkeeper would be more to be found than elsewhere—and take the rest of the country, you find that those who keep shops and have other means of livelihood are 40 per cent. of the whole. Surely then it is a case of mixed employment, which one finds so constantly in this country? Surely it means that the so-called marginal trader upon whom, according to the Report, everything else is based, is not a marginal trader in the sense that he is an inefficient trader who ought to be put out of distribution, but that he is a representative trader, and that because of his other means of livelihood he takes less profits than the representative marginal trader might take. Alternatively, you can put it this way, that because he gets only so little in the way of profits he has got to look for other employment. The fact of the number of distributors in this country, as shown by that Report, does not at all mean that there is an increase in retail prices, but it does show a very marked diminution in the profits that are looked for by the distributor throughout the country.
Deputy Dillon, when speaking on the Second Stage, said that he believed this Bill was eye-wash. He said it had got to be remembered that the Government Party, in 1926, I think it was, also indulged in a little eye-wash in setting up a Tribunal to examine into prices. If Deputy Dillon were here I would refer him to the resolution that was moved in the year in which the Tribunal was established. After I had moved that, and explained what was intended, the late Deputy Bryan Cooper got up and said that he had wondered, while listening to me, whether I had come to praise the resolution or to bury it, and Deputy Corish asked what was the good in proceeding with the resolution when it had been torn to bits by the proposer. When the resolution went to the Seanad members of the Seanad said they did not see that much good was going to come of it, and wondered why it was moved, until they had read the speeches made in the Dáil when the resolution was moved. It was clear to everyone at that time that no great good was looked for from this Commission. There had been pressure with regard to so-called profiteering. When moving the resolution I said I wanted and thought I would get one thing from that Tribunal, and that was fairly clear evidence that there was no such thing as profiteering in this country. That was what the Report established. The Minister, in bringing in this Bill, had to admit that he had no evidence of profiteering whatever. The only person who was clear about profiteering was Deputy Corry. There was no eye-wash about the Tribunal. The Tribunal was given an extremely difficult task to perform, and the public did not help them in their attempt to perform it. There were many complaints from the members of the Tribunal at that time about it, and in the end it was clear that the reason why people did not attend and give evidence before the Tribunal, although they knew the Tribunal had power to enforce their attendance, was that there was no pressure in any of the provincial towns with regard to this matter of profiteering. Despite the Tribunal's Report, despite what the Minister has to say about it, of all the Deputies who spoke in the House Deputy Murphy in one single instance, and Deputy Corry with all the nonsense he talked about profiteering, are the only two members who could be found to stand up and say that there is profiteering.
There are only two people who can stand up and say there is profiteering—Deputy Goulding and Deputy Murphy. I have indicated their fears of this Bill, and certainly they have not indicated substantially the reasons why it should ever be introduced. Deputy Davin, for years past, has talked about profiteering which went on in the country but he could not be got to make his appearance while the Bill was being discussed. He would not say a word about it, and from no part of the House, with the exception, again, of the single item quoted by Deputy Murphy, and the rather vague stuff which Deputy Corry put up was there any suggestion of profiteering or any reason whatever for the introduction of this measure. Why is it brought in? Because the Minister for Industry and Commerce really committed himself to it before he knew the facts, and then, when he did get to know the facts, he came in with his lame explanation that, occasionally, word was sent in that certain traders in certain parts of the country were overcharging. What overcharging meant was not stated, but when the Minister was concluding he said that it meant when a man was known to have a price fixed for an article one day, and a day later, or later in the same day, he sold it at a dearer price, and at a later period sold once more at the original price. That might happen with the most honest tradesman. He might have reduced the price because the article was going to be lying on his hands, and then, later on, there was a demand in the town for the article and he raised his price. The Minister adverted to one contention which was made against this Bill, i.e., that it is well known there never yet has been a successful attempt to fix prices which did not result in what was called the maximum price becoming the minimum price, and which did not result in all idea of quality disappearing. His answer to that was that this only occurs in war time when prices are rising.
There is a very excellent series of publications brought out by those who were in charge of the British Government Departments after the war. They were alleged to be very experienced writings by the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace, and that their experiences might be a help to people who came after them in regard to the matter they had to consider, and a book on the matter of the control of prices was written by a man, who was then a civil servant, now a university professor. He had been secretary to the Food Control Establishment from the beginning to the end. He sums up his experiences, and it cannot be argued that he is biased, because he went through the whole thing, and he claims they made a success of control from one angle and one angle only. He says you can show, with the sort of machinery that is established here, price-fixing machinery, after investigation of a particular type if it can be counted successful, in the sense that you can substitute the ordinary element of competition and the ordinary force of competition by a man made system, but only in time of war can you do that with all the ruthlessness the civil population would stand for. Amongst other things he pointed out that the maximum price becomes the minimum price all over again, and that all differentiation in quality goes. The phrase he used was "in the good old days of control, meat was meat, no matter where it came from, and butter was butter except where it was margarine and was sold as butter." He states further that this was not their experience only with regard to the maximum price becoming the minimum price—that was not their experience only when prices were raised. Food control lasted after the war, and on two occasions when food prices were falling they had prices established by costing accounts as the minimum at which people could sell. They reduced those prices on one occasion in the case of milk, and within twelve hours the milk was sold at a thirty per cent. reduction below the price that the milk retailer should sell by the costing account. The same thing happened with some other commodity, but I forget what it was. The last limitation these people put upon any price-fixing machinery is this, that if you are going to operate price-fixing machinery you must operate it at every stage between the purchaser and the consumer. You must follow it down from the moment the raw material makes its appearance to the people who prepare it in a semi-manufactured way, to the people who sell it wholesale down to the retailer, and if you miss any one link your scheme of control goes, and your scheme of price fixing goes wrong. And yet from all the lessons that could be learned here, this absurd measure is introduced.
As I said before, five or seven lay people are appointed, who certainly cannot know about all the businesses they are going to investigate, and they are going to have put before them the job of deciding whether certain prices of certain retailers in certain areas are or are not reasonable. If you can get the definition in the Terms of Reference what "reasonable" meant you could get a decent measure. Nobody can determine what a reasonable price is and the only use that is going to be made of that Bill is really an abuse of it. The traders are going to be harried; people are going to be egged on to make complaints; supporters of one trader can make complaints against a rival trader, and a man must go to the expense and loss of time which he should be otherwise devoting to his business, in order to answer complaints put up about his prices. I would like to see the list of prices that is going to cover, say, vegetables. Are you going to put a different price for every different cauliflower in a shop; are you going to have different prices for every individual fish in the fish-mongers, according to its freshness, according to when it was caught and first put upon the slab; are you going to have a range of prices for packed eggs which the ordinary grocer will have; are you going to have a range of prices with regard to different cuts of meat which the butchers will have, and in this case are you going to make allowance for the resulting waste such as offal and other things that will be thrown out or converted into some sort of material. There was another section in the Bill and the only section that was worth anything. It was the section that might allow these people to devote their whole time to the protected commodities in the country. Instead of giving them a decent opportunity to do that we find they are, according to the Minister, to be a honorary body, therefore not a whole time body.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 18th November.