Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Apr 1975

Vol. 280 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Adjournment Debate: Price Increases Publication.

Mr. Andrews

My reason for raising this matter on the Adjournment is the unsatisfactory reply I received on Thursday last to my question. The question was No. 84 on last Thursday's Order Paper and it was:

Mr. Andrews asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if it is the intention of the National Prices Commission to withhold publication of price increases in the national newspapers; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Question No. 85 on the same day was a question by the Opposition spokesman on Industry and Commerce on the same subject. Deputy Bruton, who is now obviously charged with the overlordship of price increases and who will become known as Mr. Junior Price Rises——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Member must be referred to by his proper title.

Mr. Andrews

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. At column 537, volume 280 of the Official Report replied:

In their January, 1975, report, the National Prices Commission recommended to me that the practice of advertising each month the list of authorised price increases in the national newspapers should be discontinued. The reasons for this recommendation are set out in detail in the report. Copies of the report are available in the Oireachtas Library and have been circulated to each Deputy. The main reasons for the recommendation are as follows:

I will take each reason seriatim and show what we regard as the spuriousness of each one. The first reason was:

(i) Since price increases by firms which have been wholly or partially exempted from price control are not included in the list of authorised price increases, the list is no longer comprehensive.

The reality is that the comprehensiveness of the advertisement would no longer be applicable. The Minister could quite clearly indicate the limitations on the advertisement. He could state that the advertisement was not comprehensive and relate his remarks to the particular price increases which were intended to be conveyed.

The second reason was:

(ii) Almost all increases approved will have already been implemented before the date on which the relevant monthly report appears. Thus the list of authorised price increases that appeared in the press advertisement was more likely to confuse than inform the consumers. The commission's recommendation was accepted.

On the matter of confusion, surely the Minister could make quite clear the date when the price increases would become operative. There should be no difficulty in that respect. This particular paragraph of the reply shows a total lack of understanding of the housewife who, in our respectful submission, cannot be confused by clearly worded advertisements stating where prices have been increased and where it is intended to increase prices. That part of the Minister's reply is an insult to the intelligence of the housewife. The housewife has become price-shocked and to suggest that this advertisement would confuse her is putting her intelligence at the minimum. We reject the fallacy and the superficial thinking of the Minister as displayed in that part of his reply.

The reply continued:

The commission have stressed that price increases will continue to be made widely known. All price increases sanctioned by them will appear in their monthly reports, which are usually well covered by the national press.

The national press is basically geared to what is newsworthy. The National Prices Commission report cannot be published in its totality, having regard to the newsworthiness aspect, which means there will be selectivity so it is unfair to suggest that the newspapers can undo the harm which the Minister is doing by not publishing the advertisement. He seems to be putting on the newspapers the obligation to do his job for him. The Minister has a bounden duty to produce the full range of price increases in the advertisement which has been published almost since the inception of the National Prices Commission in October, 1971. The newspapers, of course, would also be limited by the problem of space. It is untrue to suggest that the newspapers will or can carry the full range of price increases which up to now have been in the advertisement. The advertisement has one great merit. It has the advantage of accessibility. We believe the Minister has an obligation to let people know about price increases on foot of the Government's now well worn promise of open Government. If the Minister for Industry and Commerce was sincere about this promise he should surely be open about price increases. He is deliberately setting out here to engage in some form of cover up. His reasons for not publishing the advertisement given in reply to the questions by Deputy O'Malley and myself are totally out of touch with reality.

Paragraph 152 of the January, 1975 report states that:

After our November 1973 Report had been published, we wrote to the Consumers' Association of Ireland, the Confederation of Irish Industries, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Irish Housewives' Association, asking for their comments and observations. All the comments that were submitted were published in full in our March 1974 Report (No. 27).

The response of the Consumers' Association of Ireland was that they wished the advertisements to continue, that there be a demand for the curbing of rising prices and that they would be opposed to argument against the publication of price increases.

The CFI recognised the desirability of publishing all authorised price increases and considered that the most appropriate vehicle was the report of the commission. In their opinion there was duplication in the publication of the prices in the Report and in the advertisements. Consequently, they recommend that the report would be sufficient.

The ICTU were opposed to any change in the general policy regarding the publishing of details of price increases. The Irish Housewives' Association were in favour of a continuance of publication of the monthly report of the commission. Therefore, three of the four organisations concerned stated clearly that they supported the continued publication of prices in the advertisement. Despite the views expressed by those organisations the Minister has decided not to publish the prices in the monthly advertisement.

Paragraph 157 of the Report states and I quote:

Having considered these submissions, we concluded in our March 1974 Report (No. 27) that details of recommended price increases should continue to be published in full in the appendices to our monthly reports. We recommended, however, that the practice of publishing each month the list of authorised price increases as an advertisement in the national newspaper should be discontinued. These advertisements contained no information that was not already available in the appendices to each monthly report and the press release issued by the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the date of its publication. This recommendation was not accepted by the Minister.

In their report of March, 1974, the commission recommended that the advertisement be discontinued but the Minister, and rightly in our view, rejected the recommendation. However, he accepts the same recommendation when it is put forward in the January, 1975 report.

The Parliamentary Secretary, rather unfairly, has been sent here by the Minister to try to explain the Minister's decision. We have the greatest sympathy for the Parliamentary Secretary who is placed in this difficult situation but he has an obligation to reply to us as to why the Minister changed his mind between March, 1974 and January, 1975 on this issue.

The newspaper advertisement has the advantage of immediate accessibility. It is an easy reference. When, with Deputy O'Malley, I raised this matter by way of question on Thursday last, we stated that the report of the NPC, of which 2,000 are published, is all very well but that the NPC tried on another occasion to justify their non-publication of price increases by using the term "the psychology of inflation". Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain that term in the context of the psychology of the non-publication of the advertisement? Are both examples of psychology concomitant? Can he state why the Minister refuses to publish the advertisement? This was of tremendous assistance to housewives.

Personally, I found publication of prices on a monthly basis to be very helpful in every respect, and it is only proper that on this side of the House we would pay tribute to the hard work done in this regard by the people concerned on the commission, but that is not the point. The commission made recommendations but in the final analysis it is the Minister who must accept responsibility for the sanctioning of price rises. Anything the Parliamentary Secretary may say in an effort to exonerate either the Minister or the Government will not work. It is not good enough for the Minister to come here and tell us that the advertisements will not be published in the future. This attitude is a distinct change of mind on his part in a period of 12 months.

I do not wish to go into the whole area of price increases. There seems to be the impression abroad that the Government can, on an almost daily basis, sanction price increases but that people do not seem to mind any more. Of course people are concerned with this issue but they have been so shocked by these almost daily price increases that they have gone beyond the stage of expressing their concern. Of course, too, they are concerned with the devaluation of the £ and the consequent inability of the £ on a weekly basis to buy the same amount of food as it bought the week before. It is the duty of this House to articulate the people's concern and that is why we have raised this matter on the adjournment. I do not wish to indulge in political clichés but I must say that the Minister is engaging in a cover up because of the embarrassment caused him by the non-delivery of the promise to control inflation and price increases at an acceptable level. We all accept that prices must be increased and that the rate of inflation must increase but the increases should be at an acceptable level. However, the Government seem to be suffering from frozen feet in these matters. I trust that, in reply, the Parliamentary Secretary will refrain from saying that in some way outside influences caused this inflation and these price increases. That assertion does not bear any examination, as is evident not only from the recent report of the Central Bank but from a recent statement by the Taoiseach.

I do not want to go into the area of political clichés and to use expressions like "not discharging their responsibilities" or "not performing their proper functions". The non-publication of these advertisements is a deliberate cover-up by the Government in an attempt to prevent the housewife from getting the information to which she is entitled on price increases. People are not getting access to that information. There is no doubt that 2,000 booklets printed on a monthly basis is not sufficient. The Parliamentary Secretary will probably say they will publish as many booklets as are sought but that is not the point.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's time is now up.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Bruton)

My submission in this discussion will be that very full information is already available and will continue to be available to the public on price increases. The retention of the advertisements which Deputy Andrews is concerned about does not, on balance, serve a useful purpose. These advertisements duplicate channels of information already available. They are costly and incomplete and they contribute to what the National Prices Commission and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have described as the phenomenon of the psychology of inflation.

In their March, 1974, report the National Prices Commission recommended that the practice of publishing each month a list of authorised price increases as an advertisement in the national newspapers should be discontinued. The Minister did not accept the recommendation on that occasion. Evidently the National Prices Commission were very strongly convinced of the rightness of their case in asking that these advertisements should be discontinued, because they returned again to this subject in their January report of 1975. I would remind the Deputy and the House that the National Prices Commission would not have made this submission on two occasions if they were not convinced of its correctness. Among the members of the National Prices Commission are representatives of the Irish Housewives' Association and of the trade union interests who are deeply concerned with the phenomenon of inflation.

On the second occasion in January, 1975, the National Prices Commission brought to light additional factors in relation to this matter. They felt that this question should be reconsidered in the light of changes which had taken place during the past year. When this issue was first examined by the commission in 1973, fewer firms were exempted from price control, with the result that the list of price increases in the monthly advertisements was more comprehensive and informative. Since the autumn of 1973, more firms and industries have been exempted from detailed price control, for example, laundries, dry cleaning establishments, hotels, restaurants, cinemas, dance halls, the animal feedstuffs and fertiliser industries, and all firms producing transportable goods and employing not more than 20 people, or with a turnover not exceeding £150,000 per annum. In view of the fact that price increases by firms who have been wholly or partially exempted from price control are not included in the list of authorised price increases, the list is no longer comprehensive and, therefore, to that extent less useful in informing buyers of all the price increases which have been authorised or applied.

I should also make the point that the advertisements refer only to home produced articles and, as the Deputy is aware, many of the goods being bought by the consumer are not home produced. These advertisements were inserted in the newspapers long after the increases had taken place, in some cases up to two months afterwards. These advertisements followed the publication of the National Prices Commission report in which the particular price increase was dealt with. Of course, the price increase would have taken place at the time when the NPC gave their decision, which they recommended to the Minister, and the Minister took a decision to grant the price increase. This could have been up to two months before the advertisement was inserted.

In any of those advertisements which were published approximately 90 percent of the increases so advertised would have already taken place. Therefore, if you like, there was not much point in publishing a large advertisement telling housewives of price increases which had taken place and which were effective in the shops for up to two months perhaps. I do not think that really served any useful purpose and it could confuse people who might think that the advertisement related to an increase which would take place in the future and it might, indeed, contribute to conditioning people to accept increases which were not authorised.

For the reasons mentioned above, the National Prices Commission recommended in their January, 1975 report, and the Minister subsequently agreed, that the practice of publishing each month a list of authorised price increases as an advertisement in the national newspapers should be discontinued. The commission stressed that full details of all price increases recommended by them would continue to be published in their monthly reports and, as the Deputy has acknowledged, these are well publicised. The NPC point out that if their recommendation is not accepted the cost to public funds of advertising price increases in 1975 will exceed £30,000.

A further important point that might have been made by the commission was that the advertisements were, laterally at any rate, to a large extent not performing their purpose of informing the public of price increases. It is quite usual for manufacturers to produce a large number of products as well as different sizes of the same product but, because of marketing considerations, it would be unusual for a manufacturer to implement the same percentage increase in price on all products or categories of products.

However, to list all the products involved and to indicate the price increases for each product would entail the use of advertising space by the Department perhaps four or five times the size of that actually used with a cost, perhaps, of well over £100,000 per annum. Because of this consideration the practice was adopted of giving in the advertisement the average increase in price where the price application related to a number of products or a range of products. Telling a consumer that a range of products has increased by an average of, say, 15 per cent is, of course, quite useless. What the consumer is interested in is the increase in price for each product and an average increase of 15 per cent could mean that individual products had increased by anything from ½ per cent to perhaps 50 per cent.

The following figures indicate the extent to which price increases were given as an average in the last four advertisements prior to their discontinuance. In the August-September report, of the 86 applications 44 were given as averages. In October, of the 60 applications 30 were given as averages. In November, of the 83 applications 30 were given as averages. In December, of the 71 applications 29 were given as averages.

I would stress also that advertisements will continue to be inserted in the newspapers in relation to all products covered by maximum prices orders. These advertisements will be published prior to the maximum prices orders coming into effect. As the Deputy and the House are no doubt aware, maximum prices orders cover a very wide range of stable foodstuffs and groceries.

Mr. Andrews

Is the Parliamentary Secretary talking about the details of category A?

Mr. Bruton

I am talking about maximum prices orders. I should stress that there is no lack of information. As I said already, the National Prices Commission reports are well publicised and are available at the very small cost of 7½p.

Mr. Andrews

Accessibility.

Mr. Bruton

If a shopkeeper or a consumer is worrying about whether a particular price increase is authorised, there is provided by the Department of Industry and Commerce a service known as "Price Line" with centres in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Sligo, Athlone and Waterford. If any shopkeeper is doubtful about whether a particular price increase is authorised and has been fully examined by the Prices Commission, all he has to do is ring up the "Price Line" service and he will be told "Yes" or "No".

Mr. Andrews

Expensive and time wasting.

Mr. Bruton

I submit to the House that Deputy Andrews did not adduce any concrete examples——

Mr. Andrews

I did.

Mr. Bruton

——as to how the supplementing of the existing channels of information by a system of advertising would serve any useful purpose. My contention is that, in many ways, inflation is self-generating and feeds on itself. The more repeated publicity is given to price increases which, apparently Deputy Andrews wants, the more the climate of insecurity which he deplores is created and accelerated.

Mr. Andrews

The Parliamentary Secretary is blaming the Opposition for price increases. He has a very hard neck.

Mr. Bruton

The creation of this climate will lead people to seek to increase their own prices for what they produce in order to meet increases which they have been conditioned to think will take place. This tends to create a climate of panic about inflation which can add to rather than subtract from inflation. I do not believe Deputy Andrews desires to have advertisements put in the papers to supplement already existing and adequate channels of information on this matter. This would not in any way serve to diminish the rate of inflation which we are suffering from, unfortunately, at the moment.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday 1st May, 1975.