Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Oct 1963

Vol. 205 No. 1

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Control of Prices.

62.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he has seen reports indicating increases in prices of a number of commodities in the near future, apart altogether from the general increase which will take place as a result of the imposition of the turnover tax; whether he considers there is any justification for these increases; what steps he proposes to take to protect the consumers; and whether he will make a statement on the matter.

63.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether it is proposed to invoke price control legislation to prevent profiteering arising from the introduction of the turnover tax.

64.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will introduce price control in view of recent increase in certain commodities, and in view of the notice given by traders of coming further increases to meet the turnover tax.

65.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if in view of the fact that prices of several commodities have already been increased in excess of the 2½ per cent turnover tax, and that indications have been given that this will be the general trend, he will invoke the prices control legislation at his disposal to prevent this wholesale exploitation of the working and poorer classes.

66.

andMr. McQuillan asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether, in the light of the increases which have taken place and which will take place as a result of the turnover tax, the Government will arrange for the introduction of some form of price control for essential commodities.

With the permission of An Ceann Comhairle I propose to take Questions Nos. 62, 63, 64, 65 and 66 together.

I have seen various press reports of the kind mentioned by Deputy Norton.

In reply to a question on prices on 17th July, 1963, I explained that the circumstances in which my powers in regard to price control may be exercised are laid down in the Prices Act, 1958. I stated that I believed that the ordinary course of competition should apply to ensure that no excessive increase will take place in the price of any commodity but that, if circumstances required any action under the Prices Act, I would take it. I reaffirm that I will not hesitate to take action if any undue increases take place. Deputies will appreciate, of course, that increases in prices in consequence of increases imposed abroad on commodities which we must import are outside the possibility of control by me.

Is the Minister aware that certain groups seem to have agreed amongst themselves to increase the retail prices beyond the 2½ per cent to compensate them for the turnover tax? In such circumstances, would the Minister not reconsider his attitude towards price control?

Expressions of intentions by groups are not actually increased prices.

Is the Minister aware that in certain areas there have been agreed price increases? Surely that is evidence enough? I am speaking of increases beyond 2½ per cent——

Is the Minister not aware that, in a circular issued, I think, by the Department of Finance and by the Revenue Commissioners, retailers and distributors were invited to increase prices and to increase any price they liked to any level they liked in order to recover that tax?

They were not invited——

The Minister said that the operation of competitive pricing would reduce prices and keep them at a reasonable level. Does he not freely concede that because of the operation of widespread restrictive trading and price-fixing practices, there is no such operation of competitive pricing and therefore prices are exorbitantly high?

There is competition in the price of every commodity.

Indeed, there is not.

Deputy Corish said price increases are already in existence. I admit that. However, the affected commodities are ones in respect of the prices of which we have no control. Coal was increased in price recently partly because of world scarcity and partly because of the increasing cost of production and freight.

Flour was notified to be increased in price because of the reduction in the price of offals.

——because of the increased price of raw materials.

The price of offals rose sharply last week and the week before. Will the Minister allow the price increase to take place.

My Department and the Department of Finance are watching this whole position very closely. I have certain powers under the Prices Act and, if conditions so warrant, I shall use them.

Here is something which can be ascertained by an inquiry conducted by the inspectors of the Minister's Department. Distributors and wholesalers have, in the past few weeks, sent out circulars notifying the new prices of commodities, altogether independent of the turnover tax. By the time November arrives, the increase will be not 2½ per cent but in the vicinity of ten per cent or more. If there be a case for an increase in these prices, surely it is better for the Minister to set up a prices tribunal so that the public will know the case for an increase. If workers want an increase in wages they have to go to the Labour Court to argue their case. Why should it not be compulsory that the case for increased prices be made before a similar body?

The Deputy is making an argument.

The Minister should throw this matter into the forum of public discussion so that we may know what is fair.

The price of one-way flour is twice the price of wheat and is more than twice the price of imported wheat. It is double the price the Irish farmer gets for his wheat. Surely there is no justification for charging 100 per cent extra on the price given to the farmers for their wheat for one-way flour? Will there be any investigation as to whether these charges are justified?

Is the Minister aware that some increases have been applied already and are described as turnover tax? In the month of October, the traders are describing the increases as turnover tax.

There may be some increases this month and the rest of the year. If they are modest increases, I do not think the action recommended by the Deputy should be taken in these cases.

It is not the rest of the year but the rest of their life.

The remaining questions for oral answer will appear on to-morrow's Order Paper.

Top
Share