asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce what action the Government proposes to take either under the Prices Act, 1965, or otherwise in face of the price increase in flour which is being imposed by the flour millers in defiance of the expressed wishes of the Government; and whether the public will be required to pay this increased price.
Private Notice Question - Increase in Flour Prices.
Because of the Order which I have made under the Prices Acts 1958 and 1965, it is now illegal for a miller to charge a higher price for flour than he was charging immediately before 1st September, 1966. If I obtain evidence that anyone is contravening this Order, a prosecution will be instituted against him.
Would the Minister say whether there was any discussion between the flour millers and himself or his Department and what prior intimation there was by the flour millers that they were going to increase the price of flour?
The Deputy will realise that under the existing prices legislation in connection with a very wide range of commodities and services, it is necessary to give not less than three months notice to the Minister for Industry and Commerce in respect of any proposed increase in price. In pursuance of that legislation on 5th August, 1966 the Irish Flour Millers Association gave advance notice of their intention to increase the price of flour. On 28th September, 1966 the association was informed that I had decided to establish a Prices Advisory Body under the Prices Act, 1965, to conduct a public inquiry into flour prices and at the same time, the association was requested that there should be no increase in its prices over the prices obtaining since 1965, until I had had an opportunity of considering the report of the Prices Advisory Body and giving my decision on it. On 5th October, 1966, I made an order establishing the Prices Advisory Body, and by letter dated 27th October, 1966, the Irish Flour Millers Association requested an interview with me to discuss a proposal for granting an interim increase in the price of flour. On 28th October, 1966, my Department replied to this request pointing out that I had already met the bakers on 19th October, 1966, that they had made a similar request, that I had found it necessary to reject their request, that as the prices of flour and bread were closely interlinked, I did not see that it would be possible for me to grant their request and therefore saw no useful purpose being served in meeting the association. By letter dated 1st November, 1966, the Flour Millers Association again requested an interview with me for the purpose of discussing a proposed interim increase in flour prices. By letter dated 8th November, 1966, they were informed that I did not see any useful purpose being served by such a meeting. In the late afternoon of Friday, 9th December, 1966, a letter was received in my Department stating that the Flour Millers Association proposed as from Monday, 12th December, to increase their flour prices. I then made the Order to which I have referred and which came into operation on 13th December.
Everybody knows the Minister made the Order, but it is now three days since the flour millers announced that they were going to increase prices. I have asked what action the Government propose to take. He is not assuming there has not been any flour sold since Monday last?
I have informed the Government what action it is proposed to take in the event of any contravention of the Order, that is prosecution.
That is tantamount to saying there has been no contravention of the Order. What active steps has the Minister taken since Monday to see whether or not these increased prices are being charged?
I have no evidence of a contravention of the Order. Furthermore, the Order operates not from Monday but from Tuesday. The situation is being carefully watched.
Let me suggest that "carefully watched" is not good enough. Surely the Minister has power to go to the flour millers' establishments to see whether or not they have charged these increased prices?
I have not said we are not doing that.
There is no evidence yet that these increased prices have been charged?
That is correct.
Would the Minister ensure there will be no undue delay in seeking the evidence and taking the necessary action if the evidence is to the effect that increased prices are being charged? Will he also ensure that, if they are being charged, action will be taken, if it is attempted to pass these increases on to the public?
The Deputy can rest assured there will be no delay in investigating or, in the event of contravention, no delay in prosecuting.
Has the Minister any evidence as to whether increased prices are being charged for bread in the shops?
I have no evidence to that effect.
Have the inspectors made inquiries?
The matter is being inquired into.
While the Minister is taking these admirable steps in regard to flour, has he yet instituted legal proceedings against the Minister for Transport and Power for having increased the cost of electric light and power?
That is an entirely different matter.
The Deputy is well aware there was no contravention of the Prices Order in that regard.
From what the Minister has told us, can we expect a double increase: the bakers are looking for an increase and the millers are also looking for an increase?
That is correct.
If they get away with it, we shall have a double increase, but it could not have happened last week.
I do not intend to anticipate the findings of the Prices Advisory Body.
Is there any danger that the millers would withhold supplies?
That is a matter for them.
Is the Prices Advisory Body not taking an unduly long time to inquire into this?
Of its nature, an inquiry such as this does take time. However, I should also say I have made inquiries from the Prices Advisory Body and have been informed that a contributory factor to the delay—not the only cause of the delay but a contributory factor——
Was the two fellows who got in here without a quota.
You were further still away from it.
——has been the fact that the Prices Advisory Body had requested information from the flour millers to enable them to prepare the case which the flour millers had not furnished.
May we take it there will be no production of a smaller loaf on this occasion as there was in the past by another Government?
It has never happened.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy may take it this Government will not imitate in any way the actions of the inter-Party Government.
Order of Business.
Would the Minister inform the House whether he has taken steps in regard to the invoicing of flour from the millers?
I have called the Order of Business.