asked the Minister for Supplies whether any complaints of overcharging for sheet glass have been received by his Department during the past six months; if so, the number of such complaints received, and if he will state the names of the persons or firms against which well-founded complaints were made and what action was taken by him on such complaints.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Sheet Glass Supplies.
Four complaints have been received in my Department during the past six months regarding the prices charged for sheet glass. In two of these cases it was found that the prices charged were excessive. A refund of the overcharge has been obtained in one of the cases and the other is being pursued with a view to obtaining a refund. The other two cases were recently received and are still under investigation.
I have given careful consideration to the Deputy's request for the publication of the names of the firms concerned in the cases where it was found that the prices charged were excessive. In certain cases and circumstances, publicity of this character may be desirable and necessary, but it is not so in all cases, and I am unable to commit myself to the publication of the names of firms involved in such cases, irrespective of the circumstances.
With reference to the two cases mentioned above, one of the firms refunded the amount of the overcharge, and as I am satisfied that this firm is not making excessive profits on its total trade, I do not propose to take further action in the matter. In the case of the other firm, if it should fail to take prompt action on the lines indicated to it by my Department, I will consider what further steps it is necessary to take in the matter.
Does the Minister think it a proper way of dealing with profiteering and overcharging merely to require the profiteer to hand back ill-gotten gains? Would the Minister not consider it very much better public policy to institute prosecutions in these cases, so as to show the public that there is somebody at least looking after their interests and that those who engage in profiteering in a war situation will at least be exposed as profiteers?
The answer to the first part of the Deputy's supplementary question is in the negative and, to the second part, in the affirmative. I think the circumstances of each case must be considered separately.
Does the Minister not consider it unfair that a poor coal hawker should be prosecuted for giving short weight by a pound or half pound in the case of a large quantity of goods, while wealthy firms can apparently have the matter adjusted by making a refund. There appears to be one law for poor street hawkers and traders and small shop-keepers and another for wealthy glass-selling people.
That is not true.
In view of the Minister's unsatisfactory answer, I propose to raise this question on the adjournment.
I do not know what the Deputy proposes to raise on the adjournment.