Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Jul 1973

Vol. 267 No. 12

Written Answers. - Price Control Orders.

105.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the number of prosecutions so far instituted arising from breaches of Order No. 167 made by him on 26th June; and, if there are none, if he is satisfied that there have been no breaches by importers or wholesalers of that order.

106.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the number of prosecutions so far instituted arising from breaches of Order No. 168 made by him on 26th June; and, if there are none, if he is satisfied that there have been no breaches by retailers of that order.

With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 105 and 106 together.

There have been no prosecutions so far for breaches of either order. No complaints have been received regarding breaches of the orders, nor have any apparent breaches come to the notice of my Department.

107.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the number of prosecutions so far instituted arising from breaches of Order No. 169 made by him on 26th June; and, if there are none, if he is satisfied that there have been no breaches of that Order or that some of the maximum prices fixed were unreasonable.

The answer to the first part of the Deputy's question is none.

I have been considering representations made to me regarding some of the maximum retail prices fixed in the order referred to by the Deputy. In view of these representations and having regard to recommendations of the National Prices Commission regarding increased manufacturers' prices for certain of the goods covered by the order, I have made an amending order fixing new maximum retail prices for a number of products.

A number of retailers who have been reported to my Department to be in breach of the order were visited by inspectors from my Department and they undertook to reduce their prices to the levels fixed by the order.

108.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he is aware that a number of retailers who were marketing items, covered in the schedule to Statutory Order No. 168, as loss leaders or at a cost or cut price, cannot legally sell these items at a reasonable profit; and if he proposes to amend the Order to meet this situation.

I have no evidence, nor have any representations been made to me, that the order referred to by the Deputy is causing undue hardship for any retailer and no reasons have been advanced why I should amend the order.

Top
Share