Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Dec 1932

Vol. 16 No. 8

Control of Prices Bill, 1932—Report Stage.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 1:—

New section. Before Section 4 to insert a new section as follows:—

4.—(1) References in this Act to the wholesale price charged or to be charged for a scheduled commodity shall be construed as references to the price at which such commodity is sold or is to be sold wholesale to a person engaged in the business of selling such commodity retail.

(2) In this Act the expression "sell or offer for sale wholesale" in relation to a scheduled commodity means sell or offer for sale wholesale to a person engaged in the business of selling such commodity retail, and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.

Mr. Comyn

I second the amendment.

Mr. Lemass

The purpose of the amendment is to meet those Senators who argued that we should have in the Bill a definition of what is wholesale prices. I think the definition contained in this section is satisfactory and will not give rise to any doubts later.

Mr. Douglas

As far as I can see, the amendment meets the objections raised on the Committee Stage. The proposal made by the Minister is satisfactory.

Amendment agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment 2:—

Section 8, sub-section (4). To delete in lines 34-35 the words "hold office during the pleasure of the Minister" and to substitute therefor the words "unless he sooner dies, resigns or becomes disqualified, hold office for such period, not exceeding five years, as the Minister shall fix at the time of his nomination, but shall be eligible for renomination."

Mr. Comyn

I second the amendment.

Mr. Lemass

This is an amendment to meet the amendment moved on Committee Stage by the Senator. I accepted the amendment in principle, but this amendment conveys better what was intended.

Amendment agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment 3:—

Section 8, sub-section (5). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—

(5) If and whenever an ordinary member is adjudged bankrupt, or makes a composition or arrangement with his creditors, or is sentenced by a court of competent jurisdiction to suffer imprisonment or penal servitude, or ceases to be ordinarily resident in Saorstát Eireann, or absents himself from all sittings of the Commission for a period of three months without the permission of the Minister, he shall be disqualified from holding the office of an ordinary member.

Mr. Comyn

I second the amendment.

Mr. Lemass

The provisions of the amendment are quite satisfactory. The amendment is, of course, consequential. It provides for the removal of a member on disqualification.

Mr. Brown

This amendment is more satisfactory than the one I moved in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment 4:—

Section 12. To delete the section and to substitute the following new section therefor:—

12. Whenever an investigation is being held under this Act by the Commission into the price of a particular commodity, and any member of the Commission is personally interested in any business selling such commodity, such member shall inform the Minister of the nature and extent of his interest and shall not, unless authorised by the Minister so to do, act as a member of the Commission for the purposes of such investigation.

Mrs. Costello

I second the amendment.

Mr. Lemass

This amendment is moved to meet an amendment put forward on the Committee Stage by Senator Douglas. It requires that if a member of the Commission is personally interested in any business selling any commodity the price of which has to be investigated by the Commission, he shall notify the Minister of the nature and extent of his interest, and shall not act as a member of the Commission unless the Minister authorises him to do so. It puts the responsibility on the Minister to decide.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 5:—

Section 18, sub-section (2). After the word "person" in line 24 to insert the words "either on his own behalf or in a representative capacity."

Mr. Douglas

I second the amendment. I may say that it quite satisfies the point raised by me.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 6:—

Section 23, sub-section (1). To delete at the end of the sub-section the words "in accordance with such request," and to substitute therefor the words "into, in case such request relates to retail prices, the retail and wholesale prices charged for such commodity in the area specified in such request or, in case such request relates to wholesale prices, the wholesale prices charged for such commodity in such area."

Mr. Douglas

I beg formally to second. I think that these amendments seem to get over the difficulty which I raised on the Committee Stage. They definitely provide that when there is an inquiry as to retail prices, the Commission shall also go into the question of the cost of the commodity to the trader. There is considerable importance in that point, because I had a number of letters from traders who felt that they might be penalised under the Act for something which in no sense would be their fault. Under this amendment they cannot be specifically attacked. The Commission will also inquire into the prices they are obliged to pay. It is a very definite safeguard for traders.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 7:—

Section 23, sub-section (3). To delete at the end of the sub-section the words "the subject matter of such representation" and to substitute therefor the words "in case such representation relates to retail prices, the retail and wholesale prices charged for such commodity in the area specified in such representation or, in case such representation relates to wholesale prices, the wholesale prices charged for such commodity in such area.

Mr. Douglas

I second. The same remarks apply to this amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 8:—

Section 24, sub-section (2). To delete the sub-section and to substitute the following new sub-sections therefor:—

(2) Where, after the completion of a price investigation into the retail and wholesale prices charged for a commodity, the Commission are of opinion that unreasonably high retail prices are being charged for such commodity but that the wholesale prices charged for such commodity are not unreasonably high, the Commission shall give public notice, which shall not specify the names of the persons by whom such unreasonably high retail prices are being charged, in such manner as they think best suited for bringing to the notice of such persons such opinion and such notice shall state the price to which such prices should in the opinion of the Commission be reduced and require such reduction to be made within a time specified in such notice.

(3) Where, after the completion of a price investigation into the retail and wholesale prices charged for a commodity, the Commission are of opinion that both such prices are unreasonably high, the Commission shall give public notice, which shall not specify the names of the persons by whom such prices are being charged, in such manner as they think best suited for bringing to the notice of such persons such opinion and such notice shall state the prices to which such prices should in the opinion of the Commission be reduced respectively and require such reductions to be made within a time specified in such notice.

(4) Where, after the completion of a price investigation into the retail and wholesale prices charged for a commodity, the Commission are of opinion that unreasonably high wholesale prices are being charged for such commodity but that the retail prices charged for such commodity are not unreasonably high or where, after the completion of a price investigation into the wholesale prices charged for a commodity, the Commission are of opinion that unreasonably high wholesale prices are being charged for such commodity the Commission shall give public notice, which shall not specify the names of the persons by whom such unreasonably high wholesale prices are being charged, in such manner as they think best suited for bringing to the notice of such persons such opinion and such notice shall state the price to which such prices should in the opinion of the Commission be reduced and require such reduction to be made within a time specified in such notice.

(5) If as a result of a notice under this section the reduction or respective reductions required by such notice is or are made within the time specified in such notice, the Commission shall report accordingly to the Minister.

(6) If notwithstanding a notice under this section any reduction required by such notice is not made within the time specified in such notice the Commission shall make a report to the Minister setting out—

(i) the reasons for their opinion that the prices or respective prices required by such notice to be reduced are unreasonably high,

(ii) their opinion as to whether such prices are influenced by any agreement or combination for interference with trade competition,

(iii) their opinion as to the price or respective prices to which such prices should be reduced and the reasons for such opinion,

(iv) their opinion as to the best methods of enforcing the reduction or respective reductions required by such notice,

(v) if in the opinion of the Commission an order or orders should be made by the Minister under the next following section, the area or respective areas to which such order or orders should apply.

Mr. Douglas

I second. This amendment is a complete revision of practically the whole of this sub-section. It is difficult to follow it fully but as far as I can find out it is a very definite improvement on the sub-section previously suggested. It gets over two difficulties, to one of which I have just referred. That is the difficulty in regard to the Commission being obliged to send orders to people who are in no way responsible for the prices being too high. The other difficulty amounted to an absurdity in the Bill, that the Commission had to send notice to every single person. This amendment provides for a general notice and it is much more satisfactory as far as I can see.

Mr. Comyn

I should like to say that I am glad that the Minister has yielded to the arguments brought forward on the last occasion, particularly the matter adverted to by Senator Jameson, that it was not desirable that, in the notices that were to be sent out, the name of the person should be specified.

Mr. Lemass

That arises on a later amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 9:—

Section 24. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(3) Every report made by the Commission under the immediately preceding sub-section shall be laid by the Minister before each House of the Oireachtas unless the Minister is of opinion that it is not desirable in the public interest so to do.

Mr. Douglas

I second. This also deals with the point which I raised on the last occasion. I am quite satisfied with the provision made by the Minister. He pointed out, if I remember aright, that there might be occasions on which it would not be in the public interest to lay these reports on the Table, but generally he recognised that it should be done. I recognise that there may be rare occasions on which, perhaps, they should not be laid on the Table. In this the Minister accepts the principle that the report should be laid on the Table of each House unless he is of opinion that it is not desirable in the public interest to do so.

Mr. Johnson

I should like that some thought should be devoted to this amendment. It is true that it accepts the principle that the report shall be laid on the Table of the House but it imports a new principle inasmuch as it says that the Minister shall have discretion as to whether the report shall be laid on the Table. I am not sure whether the evil which Senator Douglas has feared might arise would be lessened in any way under this new proposal, to put into legislation a provision which says that the report shall be laid on the Table of the House and gives the Minister discretion whether he shall do so or not. I think that is undesirable and I would wish either that it should not be referred to at all or that it should be definitely provided that the report shall be laid on the Table. I think there is some danger in creating that kind of precedent in our legislation—to say that the Minister shall have a discretion whether he shall lay a report on the Table which the Seanad and Dáil desire should be laid on the Table.

Mr. Douglas

The Minister was good enough to show me the draft of the amendment beforehand and I had given consideration to that very point. My difficulty is that I cannot see any other way out of it. I do not at all agree with Senator Johnson that the Bill would be better without this provision. Under the amendment the report must be laid on the Table unless the Minister considers that it is not desirable in the public interest to do so, whereas in the Bill as it stands there is no provision for laying the report on the Table. If the Minister refuses to lay the report he can be asked for, and he will no doubt give, his reasons for doing so. If he does not lay the report on the Table he is responsible. I could find no other way for meeting this point and I had to admit that there might be reports which dealt with particular manufacturers or a specific trade and that really it would not be fair to the traders concerned to lay all the details which the report might give before the House.

Mr. Comyn

I agree with Senator Johnson that it is a good principle that the report should be laid on the Table of the House. I also agree with him that there is a second principle involved under this amendment, that the Minister shall have discretion as to whether he shall lay a report on the Table of the House or not. I think that is a new principle to introduce in legislation, and I, for one, would prefer that the matter should be left as it is rather than that an amendment should be introduced in this form. I certainly think that it is not desirable to insert these words "unless the Minister is of opinion that it is not desirable in the public interest to do so." Much though I respect the Minister, I would not like to leave the question as to whether a report should be laid on the Table of the House to the opinion of a Minister. It is wrong in principle and I think it is new in principle.

Mr. Brown

I should like to point out, in support of the amendment, that the discretion which it gives to the Minister is a discretion on an absolutely definite point. Now we have, perhaps wrongly, sometimes given the Minister a general discretion. This is a discretion which is only to be used on a particular occasion or on a particular question. If you are to give him discretion at all, you should give him a discretion such as this.

Mr. Lemass

I should like to point out that this is not a new principle. The fact is that the report may be published automatically but there is certainly no statutory obligation to publish the report. What I said on the Committee Stage was that the report would be published unless the nature of the report was such that it should not be published. One can imagine a report of such a nature that it would concern only one firm but would give a lot of information that would be injurious to that firm to other people. It would not be fair in such circumstances to publish the report. Consequently, there should be that element of discretion. If the amendment is left out the Minister may still publish the report at his discretion. I have no objection to the insertion of the amendment because that is the manner in which I propose to act in any case.

Mr. Comyn

I take it the Minister has no objection to the deletion of the amendment.

Mr. Lemass

I think it is desirable that there should be some indication as to the manner in which reports would be published.

Mr. Douglas

The Minister has said that it has always been his intention to publish the report except in special circumstances but there might be some other Minister in future who might not have the same intention.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 10:—

New section. Before Section 28 to insert a new section as follows:—

28. Whenever a price (retail) order in relation to a particular commodity is in force and an application in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars is made to the Minister by a person carrying on in the area to which such order relates the business of selling retail such commodity to amend such order by increasing the maximum price specified in such order on the ground that the wholesale price of such commodity has increased since the making of such order, the Minister shall, unless he revokes or amends, in accordance with such application, such order, forthwith request the Commission to make an investigation into such application and the Commission shall as soon as may be make such investigation and report to the Minister the result thereof.

Mr. Douglas

I second. This, I take it, is a new section put forward by the Minister to meet an amendment which I had down on the Committee Stage. My attention has been drawn to the words in this amendment, line 9, "in accordance with such application." It is not of very much importance but it looks as though these words were unnecessary, because the Minister's action might not be exactly in accordance with the application. It might not, in fact, be an application at all. It might merely be a document setting out the facts. I cannot see that the words serve any purpose. I leave the matter entirely to the Minister, but I think it would do no harm to leave out the words, and if inserted they might possibly do harm. Otherwise the amendment meets the point which I raised that where a price order is in operation, the people affected by that order should have an opportunity of making application to have the order amended or revoked.

Mr. Lemass

The amendment gives the Minister power to revoke a prices order once made. He can do that on his own initiative at any time. This amendment is to provide that if a definite application is made to him he shall revoke or amend the price order or request the Commission to make a further investigation.

Mr. Douglas

The question has been raised with me as to whether the words "in accordance with such application" are necessary or whether they might affect the section adversely.

Mr. Dowdall

Is it the Senator's point that the Minister might not change the price order if there was no application?

Mr. Douglas

That is not the question. There is no question as to what is intended by the amendment. The intention is that an individual may apply to have a price order amended which has been made. If you read the amendment you will find that where the wholesale price is changed an application may be made to the Minister to amend the order by increasing the maximum price specified in the order. It goes on to say "the Minister shall unless he revokes or amends in accordance with such application." It might not be in accordance with such application. This is a purely technical point but I think that the words do not seem to be necessary.

Mr. Comyn

Cannot he do it of his own volition?

Mr. Lemass

I think that it is no harm to have these words inserted. The application must be in the prescribed from and it is on this that the Minister authorises an increase in the fixed price up to a certain percentage. If the Minister amends the order that ends it. If he does not the Commission will consider it.

Mr. Douglas

I am satisfied.

Cathaoirleach

You agree with the wording as it is?

Mr. Douglas

I do not think it matters.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Johnson

I move amendment 11:—

New section. Before Section 29, and in Part IV, to insert a new section as follows:—

29.—(1) Where a person sells a scheduled commodity the price of which exceeds two shillings and sixpence or a number of different scheduled commodities the prices of which when added together exceed five shillings, he shall, if so required by the purchaser, issue to the purchaser at the time of sale a written statement of the weight, measure or number of the commodities sold, the price per unit of weight, measure or number, as the case may be, and the sum charged for the said commodity or commodities.

(2) If any person acts in contravention of this section he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding two pounds for each such offence.

This proposal was discussed on the Committee Stage but without the words, "if so required by the purchaser." I argued then that in this section, which deals with individual complaints, or with prices which are not subject to price order, there could be no way of proving to the Commission or to the Controller, as between the shopkeeper and the purchaser— it would be one person's word against another—without documentary evidence of some kind. I argued that it was necessary that there should be some documentary evidence. My proposal was that the purchase of every article over a certain value should be accompanied by a docket containing particulars of how the charge was made up. In view of the line the discussion took last week, and more in accordance with my own views as originally formulated, I have inserted in the amendment the words, "if so required by the purchaser." That means that if a purchaser goes into a shop and purchases articles for which he believes he is being overcharged, if he demands of the seller that the price should be stated in the docket, which is the normal custom in most shops, the obligation to issue such docket would lie upon the seller. That is all that is contained in the amendment. Apart from criticism of any details in drafting, I think it is essential to the working of this part of the Bill that the purchaser of a commodity, in respect of which a person believes he has been overcharged, should have the right to demand a sale docket from the shopkeeper.

Mr. Comyn

I second.

Mr. Douglas

I objected to an amendment of this kind on a previous occasion. I still object to it in the form in which it is introduced, because I think it is not practical. I have no objection to an obligation on the trader that he should give a receipt which will set out such reasonable details as are necessary to specify the article purchased. But when you go into the provision that if the purchase amounts to more than 2/6 a shopkeeper must set out on the invoice "a written statement of the weight, measure or number of the commodities sold, the price per unit of weight, measure or number, as the case may be, and the sum charged ..." you could not get a staff to do that in the case of small articles. If a trader tried to give such details, the price of some small things might be in decimals of a penny. With the best intentions in the world you could not get that done.

Mr. Johnson

How is it done now? The Senator said last week: "I cannot say, of course, that every trade is the same, but certainly, as far as I know of my own knowledge, there is a specific instruction in every case, no matter how small the purchase is, that where the customer asks for a docket he is to get it." What is on the docket?

Mr. Douglas

The price which is charged, with a reasonable description of the purchase, but not the detailed description provided for in the amendment. I do not object to the obligation, when there is a request, of giving a receipt with a reasonable description. What "reasonable description" means would have to be decided afterwards. The Senator wants something which could not be done in many cases. Take the sale of a packet of pins which might be included in a purchase amounting to 2/- The words "one packet of pins" would be good enough there. If you had to give the number of pins, it has to be remembered that the number would vary in different packets, and also the unit of weight or measure, as the case may be, and the sum charged.

Cathaoirleach

That would be drawing it too fine.

Mr. Douglas

I am putting an extreme case to show that if you were to specify for details you could not get the ordinary assistants to deal with it if worded as it is in the amendment. It must be a reasonable description to enable the value to be shown. To that I have no objection. It is going to be extremely difficult to set out the exact details of every commodity. It might be easy to do it if it applied to articles of the same kind.

Mr. Comyn

I understood Senator Johnson to say, when moving the amendment, that he was prepared to modify the drafting so as to meet the case indicated by Senator Douglas. I can see myself taking not an extreme case but an average case. There are certain foods made up in packets and I imagine it would be impossible for the ordinary shopkeeper to set out the price per unit of weight. The weight might be 1lb. or a little over 1lb. If the foods came from France they would probably be under 1lb. or be a fraction of a pound. There would be no really simple fraction so that it would be impossible to meet the requirement of the amendment, as drafted. I agree with the principle of the amendment if it can be brought within reasonable bounds. Senator Johnson is not wedded to the wording of the amendment and perhaps the Minister would consider it.

Mr. Lemass

I gave consideration to the amendment. I may say, straight away, that I have considerable sympathy with the idea behind it. I have in fact prepared an amendment of the kind to facilitate the working of the Bill. The wording would need revision. I took the trouble of getting an alternative draft prepared that I think would meet the objections and be acceptable to Senator Johnson, if he is prepared to substitute it for the one on the Paper. It reads:

Section 30. To insert before the section a new section as follows:—

30.—(1) Where a person who carries on a business by way of trade or gain sells in the course or as part of such business a scheduled commodity the price of which exceeds two shillings and sixpence, or so sells to one purchaser a number of different scheduled commodities, the prices of which when added together exceed five shillings, such person shall, if so required by the purchaser at the time of sale, then and there deliver to the purchaser a statement in writing setting out in respect of such commodity, or each such commodity, as the case may be, the following particulars, that is to say:—

(a) a description.

(b) if the sale is by weight or measure, the net weight or measure, as the case may be,

(c) if the sale is by number, the number,

(d) the sum charged.

(2) If any person fails, neglects, or refuses to comply with this section, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding two pounds.

I do not believe the insertion of that amendment imposes any hardship on the shopkeeper. I do not think any shopkeeper would refuse to give a receipt if a customer demands it. The only case in which it might cause certain inconvenience is in relation to a shop where articles of a small value are sold to many customers. I imagine that Messrs. Woolworth would find it objectionable if they had to give receipts. Where it is provided that the article must be over 2/6 in value, or that the sum total of the articles sold is over 5/—and I suppose anyone who buys goods to the value of 5/- in Woolworth's and asks for a receipt could be given it without much inconvenience — it would facilitate matters, if the person who said he had been charged an exorbitant price, brought that evidence before the Commission. Ultimately if the person's statement was declared to be false or misleading that person became liable for the offence.

Cathaoirleach

Will you accept that alternative amendment, Senator Johnson?

Mr. Johnson

I am perfectly satisfied with it.

Mr. Douglas

I suggest before we pass the Report Stage that a complicated amendment like this should be circulated. There is other business to come before the House which we could dispose of in the meantime. On the reading of the amendment it strikes me that it is not essential to Senator Johnson's point and will create difficulty. For the purpose of the Bill there is not going to be serious trouble about an article value for 2/6 or 2/- but, if you want to cover the total number and the value 5/- serious difficulty is immediately created. The Minister mentioned Messrs. Woolworth's. I do not go there often, I have been there and I believe you cannot get articles to the value of 5/- from one assistant. You have to go from counter to counter before the total purchase amounts to 5/-. The law will be broken if the total purchase is 5/-.

Mr. Lemass

Only if you demand a receipt.

Mr. Douglas

In an establishment where there are department one of the difficulties frequently found is that of getting a receipt where different assistants deal with different sales. The fact that you must give a receipt for articles amounting to 5/- in value may lead to a number of technical breaches where people were genuinely anxious to carry out the law. I think the purpose would be served by making the amount for articles purchased 2/- or 1/-. If there is an obligation to give a statement for a number of articles purchased from one assistant, any trader can give a general instruction that if a receipt is asked for, for a purchase amounting to 2/-, it must be given and also the details. That can easily be done. But if it has to be given where a customer spends in different departments a total amounting to 5/- something that is impossible of accomplishment is being asked. It is not an uncommon thing for a customer to ask for a receipt in one department and to bring that receipt to another department while not bothering about smaller articles.

Mr. Lemass

I have no objection if the amendment is left over.

Cathaoirleach

Would the amendment be acceptable if the figure 5/- was left out?

Mr. Douglas

Yes.

Mr. Johnson

In that case I think it would be wiser to reduce the amount from 2/6 to 1/-. My concern is for the person who buys 2 lbs. of sugar and a little tea or butter in the same shop, and that for one article that person may be overcharged—perhaps grossly overcharged——

Mr. Fanning

Very complicated conditions will apply in the case of credit purchases.

Mr. Comyn

The customer can ask for a statement at the time of purchase.

Mr. Farren

Is it not the usual custom in business when supplying necessaries to send an invoice?

Mr. Fanning

An invoice for 1/6?

Mr. Lemass

I cannot imagine a shopkeeper selling goods on credit without giving a statement.

Cathaoirleach

Will the figure be altered to 2/-?

Mr. Johnson

I am satisfied with the Minister's suggestion to embody the idea in my amendment. I am not wedded to the phraseology but I feel that the whole section is useless unless some provision of that kind is inserted, so that there shall be documentary evidence of proof in cases of the kind.

Cathaoirleach

I shall now put the amendment in its amended form, i.e., by the deletion in sub-section (1) thereof of the words "and sixpence, or so sells to one purchaser a number of different scheduled commodities, the prices of which when added together exceed five shillings" and of the words "or each such commodity, as the case may be."

Question put and agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 12:—

Section 32, sub-section (2). To delete lines 7-9 inclusive and to substitute therefor the words "and as is either in the possession of such person or in the power, without incurring unreasonable expense, of such person to obtain."

Mr. Douglas

I beg to second the amendment. It is a verbal change which makes clear what was the original intention.

Amendment agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment 13:—

Section 32, sub-section (2). To delete all from and including the word "in" in line 12 down to the end of the sub-section and to substitute therefor the words "either in the possession of such seller or in the power, without incurring unreasonable expense, of such seller to obtain."

Mr. Douglas

I second.

Amendment agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment 14:—

Section 33, sub-section (1). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—

(1) Where a report is made to the Controller by an inspector on a complaint referred to him for investigation and the Controller, after consideration of such report, is of opinion that such complaint is well founded but is also of opinion that it is desirable in the public interest that an investigation should be held by the Commission into, in case such complaint related to a retail price, the retail prices or, in case such complaint related to a wholesale price, the wholesale prices charged for the commodity to which such complaint relates in the area where the seller mentioned in such complaint carries on business, the Controller shall not take any steps under the next succeeding sub-section but shall refer the matter to the Commission who shall forthwith make an investigation into, in case such complaint related to a retail price, the retail and wholesale prices charged for such commodity in such area (including the area where such seller carries on business) as the Commission thinks fit, or in case such complaint related to a wholesale price, the wholesale prices charged for such commodity in such area (including the area where such seller carries on business) as the Commission thinks fit and such investigation shall be deemed to be a price investigation within the meaning of Part III of this Act, and the provisions of that Part relating to the following matters, that is to say, proceedings consequential on price investigation, price orders, validity of price orders, revocation and amendment of price orders, and offences in relation to price orders, shall apply accordingly.

Mr. Douglas

I second this amendment. It, also, meets a rather important point raised in connection with Section 4. It gives considerably more discretion to the Commission. As the Bill originally stood the Commission were obliged to take action in cases which were not suitable. This amendment gives discretion to take suitable action as against action which might not be suitable at all.

Amendment agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment 15:—

Section 33, sub-section (1). Before the word "Where" in line 20 to insert the words "Subject to the provisions of the immediately preceding sub-section".

Mr. Douglas

I second.

Amendment agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment 16:—

Section 33, sub-section (1). To delete paragraph (b) and to substitute the following new paragraph therefor:—

(b) if such seller complies with the requirements of such notice, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say—

(i) the Controller shall take no further steps in relation to such complaint (in this paragraph referred to as the investigated complaint),

(ii) if the investigated complaint relates to a sale or offering for sale retail or wholesale and another complaint is made in relation to a sale or offering for sale whether retail or wholesale by such seller on a date previous to the date to which the investigated complaint relates the Controller shall take no proceedings under this Part of this Act in relation to such other complaint.

Mr. Douglas

I beg to second the amendment. It is part of the same scheme.

Mr. Comyn

On the last occasion when a discussion took place on this amendment the Minister was out attending a division in the other House. It was thought that it would be very invidious to allow people, after a decision was given in a case, and after they had known that the price charged was too high, to come forward and make complaints and to get repayment of portion of the money. The idea was to preclude any person who had made any purchase before the date of the ruling of the Controller. Looking at paragraph (ii) we read "if the investigated complaint relates to a sale, or offering for sale, retail or wholesale, and another complaint is made in relation to a sale or offering for sale whether retail or wholesale by such seller on a date previous to the date to which the investigated complaint relates the Controller shall take no proceedings ...." The statement I made on the last occasion was that no person, after the Controller had given his decision, should be entitled to make a fresh complaint in respect of any purchase which took place before the decision was given. The meaning was this: Of course a person who has bought before the decision was given and had no intention of making his complaint, if he finds the decision given was that the article for which he paid 1/6 should have been sold at 1/- might take advantage of the decision to come back to the seller and make a complaint. I do not press this very hard, but as the Minister was not here on that occasion I want to bring to his notice what was in the minds of Senators, namely, that the crucial data was the date of the award. The purchase was the date to which the investigated complaint relates, and the date to which the investigated complaint relates would be the date on which the article was alleged to be bought at an excessive price. I think what the Seanad intended was to prevent any person making a complaint in relation to any sale by some seller in respect of a transaction which took place before the award of the Controller, so as to prevent any person from making a wrong use of the award. The reason I have gone so fully into the matter is that the Minister was not here when the subject was debated and when I think Senator Jameson very fairly put his reasons. I am not pressing it, as I said, very hard, but I am bringing it before the notice of the Minister.

Mr. Lemass

I should like to point out that what is proposed to be done by this amendment takes place normally after the seller complies with the service of the notice. No publication is made, no intimation is given to the public that such a complaint was made or that such an award has taken place. I would like to make a slight drafting amendment in the amendment. That is, in paragraph (ii) which reads, "if the investigated complaint relates to a sale or offering for sale, retail or wholesale, and another complaint is made in relation to a sale or offering for sale, whether retail or wholesale." Of course the investigated complaint must relate to a sale "retail or wholesale" and these words ought to be deleted. That will improve the drafting. It is a purely drafting amendment.

Amendment to the amendment agreed to.

Amendment 16, as amended, agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment 17:—

Section 33, sub-section (1). To delete in line 65 the words "the seller for" and to substitute therefor the words "persons selling."

Mr. Douglas

I second the amendment.

Mr. Lemass

Amendments 17, 18 and 21 are all designed to ensure that the name of the seller will not be published in the certificate.

Mr. Douglas

That I think is quite satisfactory. It was not that anyone could seriously object to the publication of the certificate but we did object to what seemed to us inflicting the greatest penalty at first, that is, publishing the name. If that were ever done it should be the last, instead of the first, step taken. I am very glad the Minister has made the matter clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 18:—

Section 33, sub-section (1). To delete in line 16 the words "such seller for" and to substitute therefor the words "persons selling."

Mr. Douglas

I second.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 19:—

Section 33, sub-section (2). To delete in lines 56-58 the words "as to whether unreasonably high retail prices or unreasonably high wholesale prices (as the case may be) are being charged" and to substitute therefor the words "into, in case such certificate, if made, would relate to a retail price, the retail and wholesale prices charged for such commodity in such area (including the area where such person carries on business) as the Commission think fit, or in case such certificate, if made, would relate to a wholesale price, the wholesale prices charged for such commodity."

Mr. Douglas

I second.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 20:—

Section 33, sub-section (2). To delete in line 61 the words "for such commodity."

Mr. Douglas

I second.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment 21:—

Section 33, sub-section (5). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—

(5) No certificate under this section shall state the name of the seller upon whom such certificate is to be served.

Mr. Douglas

I formally second this amendment. It is much better drafting than the amendment which was accepted in the Committee Stage. It provides that where there is an individual price fixed for an individual firm and if the price is raised the Controller shall be satisfied that the price is changed in the amending order.

Amendment agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment 22:—

Section 33, sub-section (5). After the word "may" in line 16 to insert the words "and, if he is satisfied that the relevant wholesale price has substantially advanced since such certificate was made, shall."

Mr. Douglas

I second.

Agreed.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment 23:—

Section 36, sub-section (1). After the word "premises" in line 35 to insert the words "vehicle, stall, booth or other stand."

Mr. Johnson

I second this amendment. It meets the point raised by me on a previous occasion.

Mr. Lemass

It is in relation to the publication of prices and applies to all classes of travelling shops and sale and everything else.

Amendment agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 24:—

Section 38, sub-section (3). After the word "manufactured" in line 14 to insert the words "or produced."

Mr. Douglas

I second.

Amendment agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment 25:—

Section 38, sub-section (3). After the word "manufacturers" in line 17 to insert the words "or producers."

Amendment agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment 26:—

Section 39. To delete paragraph (e), inserted in Committee, and to add at the end of the section the following new sub-paragraphs:—

(iv) in case such commodity is a commodity which if imported into Saorstát Eireann would on importation be liable to a customs duty, the price which, in the opinion of the Commission, an importer would give for such commodity if it were imported direct from the manufacturer or producer thereof and were delivered freight and insurance paid, in bond, at a specified place of importation in Saorstát Eireann;

(v) in case such commodity is a commodity the importation of which into Saorstát Eireann is prohibited or restricted by law, the price which, in the opinion of the Commission, an importer would give for such commodity, if the importation of such commodity were not so prohibited or restricted, and such commodity were imported direct from the manufacturer or producer thereof and were delivered freight and insurance paid at a specified place of importation in Saorstát Eireann.

Mr. Douglas

I am prepared to second this although it is an amendment substituted for an amendment inserted by me on the Committee Stage. When I proposed that amendment I thought it probable that, if carried, some re-drafting would be desirable. That has been done and I am perfectly satisfied with the amendment as it stands.

Amendment agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 27:—

Section 39. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Every manufacturer's price report shall be laid by the Minister before each House of the Oireachtas unless the Minister is of opinion that it is not desirable in the public interest so to do.

Mr. Douglas

I formally second the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 28:—

Section 42, sub-section (1). After the word "manufacturer" in line 12 to insert the words "or producer."

Mr. Douglas

I formally second the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 29:—

Schedule. To insert between lines 22 and 23 the words: "Every commodity which is used as food or drink by man, other than drugs or water."

Mr. Johnson

I formally second the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 30:—

Schedule. To delete in line 23 the word "food."

Mr. Johnson

This amendment is consequential on the other and I formally second it.

Amendment agreed to.

Ordered: That the Fifth Stage be taken on Thursday, 15th December, 1932.