asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism whether he is aware that the operation of stand-still orders in relation to drink prices has resulted in considerable injustices; and whether he will introduce new price controls which will remove anomalies and control overcharging effectively.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Drink Prices.
13.
I am not aware that the operation of stand-still orders in relation to drink prices has resulted in considerable injustices. The price of alcoholic drink for on-premises consumption in licensed premises is controlled by the Maximum Prices (Intoxicating Liquor) Order. This Order fixes the maximum prices of stout, ale, lager, whiskey, gin and vodka at the levels being charged between 19 and 24 June, 1978 and in addition, provides for all approved price increases since that time.
The High Court and the Supreme Court have upheld the constitutionality of the Order. In its unanimous ruling in May, 1980, the Supreme Court referred to the fact that the Minister and his advisers had acted equitably and without discrimination in devising this system of price control for drink.
At the present time, there are no plans to alter the existing system of price control on alcoholic drink. However, all systems of price control are subject to continuing review to ensure that they are in a form best suited to the prevailing economic circumstances.
Would the Minister stand back and look at the problem for a moment? Would he accept that there must be an element of unfairness when houses down the country — I know a number of them in west Cork — which at present charge 66 pence for a pint of Guinness or Murphys are prosecuted for so doing while one is charged 74 pence in the Dáil bar here, or 94 pence in a hotel in Dublin, five shillings a pint dearer? Does the Minister see any element of injustice in that?
It was always the practice that hotels were allowed to charge higher prices because of the circumstances in which they operate — with a greater number of staff available, greater capital investment — and matters of that kind were taken into consideration in allowing them to impose increased charges.
Would the Minister not accept that whereas there might have been certain circumstances which provided for a lower price level in 1978 — such as the fact that a house might have been run down, might not have been modernised — the owner of those premises is now being penalised for all time? Even if the owner spends money bringing his premises up to the level of the others in the area, he is penalised for all time because of the fact that in 1978 he was charging lower than the other premises in the area?
From what the Deputy is saying I take it that he is advocating that, in some instances, publicans should be allowed charge higher prices. The purpose of the control is to protect the consumer as far as possible.
I shall not rise to that bait other than to say it is hardly protection when the fellow who charges 94 pence a pint gets away scot free while the fellow who charges 66 pence a pint is hauled into court. Would the Minister not accept that a fairer system would dictate that the houses in a particular area would not be allowed charge beyond a certain level and that one or two premises would not be forced, by law, to keep their prices forever below those charged in that area? Would the Minister not accept that that would constitute a fairer system?
The Deputy is aware that the matter was brought before the Supreme Court.
I accept its constitutionality but not its justice. The courts do not rule on justice; they rule on law under the Constitution.
Has the Minister given any consideration to the view expressed that de-controlling prices and allowing market forces to take over is the answer which is the Minister's view in other areas?
That matter has not been considered.
Is the Minister considering it?
Will the Minister look into the matter?
Question No. 14.
This Government are not interested in justice.