The debate on the Second Reading of the Control of Prices Bill yesterday covered a wider field than I had expected, but I think it is better that I should confine my remarks in reply to those points which had a direct bearing upon the question of prices control legislation; that is to say, points relating to the administration of the 1932 Act or the provisions of the present Bill. Other questions which were discussed by many Deputies relating to the cost of living price levels can be discussed at another time. I do not propose to refer to them now, except in so far as it may be necessary to do so in connection with the administration of the Control of Prices Act, 1932. I was rather surprised that a number of Deputies persisted in the idea that legislation for the control of prices, or legislation for the purpose of establishing machinery to control prices was made necessary because of the policy of the present Government, or some other temporary circumstances. I explained at some length yesterday that the demand for and recognition of the need for permanent machinery for the control of prices has existed here since this State was established.
I do not want to go over again the ground I covered yesterday, but if we are to have the minds of Deputies brought to the consideration of this Bill in the right atmosphere, so as to ensure its improvement, if possible, I think it is necessary to emphasise again that there is need for machinery to control prices which is absolutely independent of and apart from whatever temporary conditions may now exist or may have existed at any time. That need was recognised by our predecessors as far back as 1923. I mentioned yesterday that in that year Deputy Cosgrave, as Leader of the Government, announced that his Government intended to introduce legislation for that purpose. Although that legislation did not in fact appear it was not because of any failure on his part at any rate. If we are to judge by his own words he recognised the need that existed for it. He explained to the House at the time that the failure of his Government to produce a Bill was due to the inherent difficulties of framing what they regarded as a suitable measure. He said his Government were impressed with the gravity of the case and with the necessity for such a Bill and he assured the House that they would endeavour to put up a measure which they thought might meet the case. They did not do so. But the circumstances that then existed were considerably different from those which exist now, and whatever need there was for such legislation then was as independent of these circumstances as the need to-day is independent of the temporary circumstances existing in this year.
Furthermore, when complaints about prices had forced the Cosgrave Government into further action some years later, they established the Tribunal on Prices in 1926. The members of that tribunal, in the report which they submitted to the House said that the outstanding fact which resulted from their investigations was the need for permanent machinery for the supervision and regulation of prices, and their report, as mentioned yesterday, elaborated their plan for the establishment of a permanent prices board. Now, I mention these facts again because, whatever desire Deputies may have to score Party points, it is a fact that there is a permanent need for legislation of this kind. Machinery for the control of prices should be a part of the ordinary equipment of the Government of this State, and I would ask Deputies to bring their minds to a consideration of this Bill in that light and not merely for the purpose of scoring debating points or securing Party advantage. We are here adding to the legislative code of this State a measure which, I submit, is of considerable importance, a measure which will be always of importance and the need for which will always exist. I suggest that we should deal with this Bill in that light and in no other.
A number of Deputies who spoke yesterday thought fit to criticise the members of the commission established under the 1932 Act and also the manner in which I, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, had administered it. I submit it is very unfair to base any attack upon the Prices Commission on the ground that during the period in which it existed prices rose. The Prices Commission was not established for the purpose of preventing a rise in prices. Its function was to ensure that unfair prices were not charged. You could have unfair prices during a period when the cost of living was falling just as you could have quite fair prices producing a rise in the cost of living. The function of the commission was to deal with allegations of profiteering, allegations that undue or unfair profits were being charged by traders or manufacturers, and it had no function whatever to explore into the causes or circumstances of rising prices or, in any way, to check a rise in prices. There is undoubtedly an obligation on the Government to deal with any situation that may arise here, resulting from changes in the general price level, but the particular commission established under the Control of Prices Act was not charged with that responsibility.
The Prices Commission established under the 1932 Act fulfilled its duty in toto. Its duty was to carry out investigations into the price of articles referred to it for investigation. If there is any complaint that the investigations of the commission did not cover a wide enough field the responsibility is mine. It is not theirs. They carried out, competently and expeditiously, every investigation they were asked to undertake and completed their work, the completion of their work being represented in the reports furnished to me and in all but two cases furnished to the Dáil. They are, of course, engaged on one investigation at present which has not been completed.
Deputy Dillon described the commission as a humbug and Deputy Norton described it as an illusion. I do not think either Deputy knew what he was talking about. The Prices Commission has been effective in preventing any tendency towards the charging of undue-prices. It achieved that purpose by the mere fact of its existence. I know it is not possible to produce concrete evidence; it is obviously an intangible matter at the best of times, but the existence of the commission, the fact that it had the powers given to it by the Act, and that it was obviously engaged in investigations of one kind or another, had undoubtedly a very deterring effect on manufacturers or traders who might think the time ripe to make undue profits. Apart from whatever indefinite and general effect its existence may have had, we are obliged to take note of the actual work which it did. It is true, no doubt, and Deputies are somewhat disappointed that it is true, that in the majority of cases in which the commission did carry out an investigation the commission discovered that unduly high prices were not, in fact, being charged and that the prevailing prices were, in fact, reasonable and were not affording an undue profit to those engaged in the manufacture and sale of the articles concerned. In other cases their report was different. In one particular case they reported that while unfair prices were being charged at the time the investigation had begun, the position had rectified itself at the time their investigation had concluded. Deputies who appreciate the significance of that report will appreciate the effectiveness of the work of the Prices Commission, without any resort at all to the machinery for the fixation of maximum prices or the regulation of profits. In fact, any machinery set up by the Dáil or any body charged with the responsibility of investigating prices, will find that the most effective work can be done by publicity and examination rather than by resort to coercive measures.
My administration of the Act of 1932 has also been criticised. It was criticised in one respect by Deputy Davin because, he said, I failed to act on the recommendation of the commission in respect to the price of flour. I shall deal with that matter subsequently, but I want here and now to say that on every occasion on which a complaint was made to me that the prices generally charged for any article were unduly high, or wherever we had reasonable ground for suspicion that such was the case, the members of the commission were asked—immediately asked—to undertake the necessary investigation. I have heard Deputies allege in this House that profiteering was going on in respect of certain articles. I challenge these Deputies to explain why it is they kept silent about the information which they alleged they had in that connection.
