Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Aug 1965

Vol. 59 No. 8

Public Business. - Prices (Amendment) Bill, 1965—Committee and Final Stages.

SECTION 1.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, between lines 12 and 13 to insert:

"() (1) The Government shall establish a Prices Appeal Board the membership of which shall be five, the Chairman of which shall be a Judge of the High Court, and not more than two of whose members shall be civil servants.

(2) Any person or company aggrieved by any order of the Minister under this Bill shall have a right of appeal to this Board and the decision of the Board on this appeal shall be final.

(3) Appeals may be held in public at the request of either the Minister or the appellant."

This amendment proposes the setting up of a Prices Appeal Board so that there shall be some appeal from decisions of the Minister in regard to prices. This is a most necessary amendment because obviously there is a danger in the powers given to the Minister under the Bill. They are powers which are more sweeping than those he exercises at the moment in any other respect; powers as a result of which any firm or group of firms could be put out of business by decisions reducing or controlling their prices arbitrarily. One realises that in practice the Minister will certainly do nothing of the kind, that he will neither seek to put firms out of business nor take any action which will have this kind of effect intentionally.

Nevertheless, the problem of evaluating whether there should be a price increase, how much it should be, whether in a certain instance prices should be reduced, is a very difficult exercise in which there is room for error. A great deal of judgment is involved. It is not a simple question of looking at accounts and seeing how much the costs of a firm have gone up. Anybody who has any knowledge of price economics—either in practice, in a shop, or in theory, as a writer or student—will know how much is involved and how complex the business is.

It is difficult enough for an individual to fix his own prices at levels appropriate economically and socially, but for somebody outside the business to try to do it, with no direct knowledge to enable him to determine what the price should be, without having any direct responsibility for the economic consequences of his action, is something which I find disturbing and frightening. I myself, placed in that position, would have the gravest doubts in reaching a conclusion that could be found defensible and proper in a particular instance. I would have the greatest hesitation in telling any person or group of people that the price they are charging is a wrong price.

That such a power should be given to be exercised by a Minister without public inquiry or right of appeal is something that goes beyond the normal practices of a democratic society, something that seems a challenge to us to have established some appeal procedure. It is something that affects not alone the welfare of enterprise and its proprietors but something, because of the way in which the Minister and the Taoiseach have announced they will operate the Act, that would have a very great potential impact on the livelihood of wage earners and on the level of wages.

This does not appear to have been appreciated by the Labour Party and I am puzzled as to why this should be so. The Taoiseach, it I recall correctly what he said—we are at a disadvantage in not having the report of the Dáil debates—told the House the intention was that no price increases would be authorised where the cause of the increase was within the control of the management. This was elaborated, again if I recall it correctly—I should be happy if the Minister would interrupt me if I am wrong, though I do not believe I am—to the effect that, in fact, such increases would be allowed only after costs of materials had gone up. I can think of no clearer way of saying that wage increases will not be accepted as a reason for price increases.

If that is not what was intended the words are remarkably misleading. If that is what was intended we have here a most effective wage freeze measure because it is quite clear that except where a wage increase is sufficiently small or an increase in productivity is sufficiently rapid, a firm can approach a wage increase without a price increase only by having its profits reduced to an acceptable level. Otherwise, no wage increases can be granted by a firm in these conditions without endangering the firm's survival. Firms and managements are known to place a lot of store by their survival, to be reluctant to take any action which would put them out of business.

In such circumstances, the intention of the Minister and the Taoiseach appears to be to use the legislation in a manner that would necessitate some sort of appeals machinery not only to protect the firm and its management but also the worker—to prevent this being used as a wage freeze measure in a manner and at a time that might be inappropriate. It may be a good thing that this Bill should be used to discourage and prevent firms from increasing wages in certain circumstances. Perhaps, this has in it useful elements of an incomes policy of a sort but if that is the case it should be clearly stated.

If it is the case it is most essential that an appeals machinery should be established. In any case where factors that should have been taken into account were overlooked or where a decision is one which could not be legitimately covered earlier by the management of the firm or by the trade unions to protect the rights of members to claim increases in wages, an appeals machinery is necessary.

I am in the difficulty that I have had to move this amendment, for procedural reasons, before discussing the section. What I should have liked to have done was, first of all, to probe the Minister's mind on the section to establish to what extent the statements made in the Dáil reflect his thinking on the matter—whether my interpretation of those statements, which is the only one that the English language seems capable of, is correct. If I have misinterpreted the statements, part but only part of the grounds for an appeals board would, of course, disappear—if the Minister can say I have misquoted the words because I have not had the advantage of a proper text, or that the words did not mean what they appear to mean and that a claim for a price increase on the grounds that wages have risen will be acceptable and that this measure will not be used in cases of that kind. In such circumstances, from the point of view of the workers, there would not be the same urgent interest in an appeals board. However, there would be an indirect interest because if such decisions led to a firm's operations being disrupted, then the firm might be put out of business and the employees would suffer. That is taking an unduly naive view of the matter.

The Labour Party appear to have taken the view that the Bill is directed against management and that it would not have any impact on the workers. If the Minister or the Taoiseach appear to be doing what I interpret they are doing, this could have an impact of a serious character on the workers. The Minister may say that the powers will be exercised in a most cautious way and that care will be taken to ensure that there will be no mistakes. I do not have any doubts about his enthusiasm in this respect but mistakes can be made in this extremely complex business.

I am aware of a case where the Prices Advisory Body were considering some price increases, where the evidence from another Department, which was relevant to the case and would have helped to justify the increase, was not taken into account. Indeed, there was some disagreement between the two Departments on the matter. If two Government Departments could disagree in regard to a matter of this kind, we cannot leave it simply to one Department to decide the solution in this important matter, when so much depends on the management and the workers concerned. I do not see on what grounds a Prices Appeal Board can be resisted by the Minister. The right of appeal is an inherent part of any system of decision-making which may impinge seriously upon the welfare of the members of the community. It is all the more necessary where a decision is being taken by a Minister. not normally as the result of a public inquiry, but as the result of private study.

We do not know whether a firm will be called upon to give evidence, how the evidence will be given, whether the reasons which will lead the Minister to the decision to fix prices will be explained to them and whether there will be adequate opportunities of considering those reasons or of coming back again with further reasons. We have no idea how this decision will be made or when it will be taken because the procedure is not a public one.

I have proposed in the amendment that a Prices Appeal Board be established, that its membership shall be five and that a judge of the High Court shall be its Chairman, which is the normal procedure in these cases. I have suggested that not more than two of the members of this Appeal Board shall be civil servants. It seems desirable to me that the appeal machinery should be independent of the Civil Service and should be seen to operate independently of the Civil Service mechanism. I have left it open for these appeals to be held in public either at the request of the Minister or the appellant. Either side may wish it to be held in public so that justice can be seen to be done

As I have said, I am at some disadvantage in not being able to probe the Minister's intentions before putting down this amendment. The amendment is justified and is something the Minister should seriously consider. I cannot see that any harm will be done by it. I can see much harm being done, potentially, if we do not have such an appeal tribunal.

Mr. O'Quigley

I should like to support the amendment on the simple ground that where the lives and fortunes of people in business will be affected, and there is, as Senator Garret FitzGerald said, a possibility of error, once that possibility exists, it is only right and proper that there should be some means of correcting any error that may develop.

We realise that the Minister and his advisers will proceed with the utmost caution in determining and fixing prices but, judging from the sweeping nature of the provisions in the Bill, in the first six months that it will be in operation, it appears to me that the Minister and his advisers will have a great deal to do all at the one time. Therefore, the possibility, not to say, the probability, of error, is greatly increased by the urgency of the need to operate the section and by the range of the commodities, the services and so on that will come under ministerial review.

Of course, the Minister can contend that the machinery suggested in the amendment is rather elaborate to deal with what will only be a temporary measure. It is envisaged, I suppose, in an optimistic way, that the legislation will last for no more than six to 12 months. I should like to call the attention of the House to the fact that legislation of this kind, which is experimental, may, in fact, turn out to be useful. If it turns out to be useful, it may not be that easy to get rid of it. If the legislation functions anyway satisfactorily, the Minister or the Government may not wish to come to the Oireachtas to repeal it. When I say that I have in mind that the Oireachtas, almost 26 years ago, passed a resolution—I think it was at the beginning of September—declaring a national emergency and setting the Constitution aside. Now, 26 years later, the national emergency is not yet over.

Governments and Ministers must, from time to time, have seriously considered whether they should pass two resolutions, one in Dáil Éireann and one in Seanad Éireann, annulling the resolutions declaring a national emergency. Obviously, they have decided not to do that. Experience of human nature and experience of bureaucracy shows that the more power they can get into their hands the more they want and the greater the power they have the more reluctant they are to let go of it.

I quite see that the legislation we are passing now and which we all hope will only be of a temporary character, may well, in five or six years' time, be still on the statute book and still in operation. While the Government may make an order for six months it can continue the six monthly order in operation from six months to six months. It can go on like this and this piece of legislation may well remain on the statute book for a considerable time.

There should, in my opinion, be no objection whatever to the amendment because no person aggrieved by an order made by the Government will lodge an appeal unless he has good grounds for doing it. He will know that if he appeals it may be heard in public if the Minister says: "Very well, if you want an appeal, I want to have it in public". It is only then an appeal that is well founded will be taken because nobody wants to have the internal arrangements as to how prices are fixed and so on dealt with in public unless he has a good case.

From the point of view of the Minister I think there should be no objection to accepting the amendment, unless he will contend that there is no possibility of error. It seems that if the many items which seem to me as an ordinary consumer to warrant some form of control by the Government, or some form of restraint by someone, are to be dealt with, the risk, not to say the probability, of error, is not inconsiderable. I do not think we should deprive any business firm of the right to have an order made in its case reviewed by an independent authority. The number of appeals is unlikely to be great, but I think we should provide this facility because, as I have already indicated, I do not think it will be invoked except in cases where people seriously believe they have a good case, a case that can be made in public, and a case that will stand up in public.

Mr. E. Ryan

I wonder whether the proposer and seconder of the amendment would indicate what they think the terms of reference of this appeal board should be. Section 2 of the amendment provides that any person or company aggrieved by an order of the Minister shall have a right of appeal. It seems to me to be almost inevitable that any order made by the Minister under this Bill will aggrieve certain people, and possibly quite a number of people. The amendment, as proposed, seems to suggest that anyone who is aggrieved can appeal to this board and if they show that they have been aggrieved the board can annul the order. If that is the intention of the amendment it makes a complete farce of the whole Bill, and if it is not the intention I find it hard to see how in practice an appeal board could deal with a grievance of anyone who is affected by an order of the Minister and what the appeal board could do, except annul the order. In fact, the order might aggrieve only a limited number of people. The order itself might be a very good order, a necessary order, an order which in general would be very good, and it might be annulled because a few people came before the appeal board and showed that they were aggrieved by it. This seems to make a farce of the Bill, and unless the terms of reference of the appeal board were laid down much more carefully and specifically than in this amendment, it could not possibly be supported.

Mr. Murphy

I wonder could you help us, Sir, as to how we are to proceed. We are on section 1 of the Bill and, in effect, it is the whole Bill. We have not had the benefit of hearing the Minister make a Second Reading speech on the Bill. Could we deal with 22A, 22B, etc. because otherwise we are trying to deal with the whole Bill in Committee as there is only one section?

On the amendment, I should like to say that our interpretation of the Bill, without having had the benefit of hearing the Minister on Second Reading, is that it is not a piece of wages legislation. It is not a sly way of introducing a wages standstill or wage control. If that were so, I am afraid we would be in trouble. I think we are entitled to have some assurance from the Minister. It is usual for the Minister to reply after a discussion on an amendment, and on Committee Stage there is nothing to prevent the Minister from speaking any number of times. Before going any further with this discussion, I certainly should like to hear the Minister because he is the Minister responsible for the Bill.

An Cathaoirleach

When the amendments are disposed of, the section will come up for consideration.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Dr. Hillery)

Senators are dealing with the amendment in the context of normal circumstances. It would, of course, be less than desirable to have such wide powers available to the Minister in normal circumstances. As has been repeated time and time again by my predecessors in office, and repeated during the course of the discussions on this Bill in the Dáil, we believe that in normal circumstances the best controller of prices is competition.

This is not a totally new Bill. It is an amendment of the 1958 Prices Act. That Act gave direct powers to the Minister in relation to certain commodities: bread, sugar, butter, and milk in certain areas; and it gave powers to the Minister in circumstances of an emergency in relation to supplies. For the rest, the powers of the Minister were limited to investigations by prices advisory committees of manufacturers' prices and services. It also gave the Minister power of investigation by the Fair Trade Commission. Arising out of a report from the Commission or a committee, the Minister could fix the price of an article or the charge for a service. This was believed by the Government to be the best way to deal with prices, but it was always envisaged that an economic situation could arise in an emergency in relation to supplies which would require more direct powers, and this amending Bill seeks to give these powers to the Government.

This is a permissive Bill. It is not a temporary Bill and would not be brought back to the Legislature for annulment. It permits the Government to make an order if the Government think at the time that the economic situation warrants such an order. That order would give certain wide powers to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The period of the order is six months which could be repeated by a continuation order, but the Government's attitude is that this would be a temporary activity on the part of the Minister. I think that the amendment is introduced without having regard to a national economic situation requiring very positive and sometimes very strong action. The degree of the economic situation, and how much activity would be required, will have to be determined by the Government. The Government must be the arbiter. I can foresee the possibility, for the sake of the national economy, that certain prices would have to be investigated and fixed. This amendment would set up an appeal body from the Government and from the Minister. There has never been such an appeal body even in times of national emergency. As Senator E. Ryan said, this would so complicate matters and delay procedures that it would negative the whole purpose of the amendment of the 1958 Act.

We have experience of investigating prices under the 1958 Act through committees or through direct Departmental investigations. In every case where a report is made to the Minister the people concerned are given the substance of this report and they are called in to discuss it and make their case.

There is an appeal to the Minister and there is no question of a secret investigation and the decision handed down. There is a very full discussion in every individual case. If the economic situation requires it, the Government will have to take any action that is necessary. I do not see that any Government would want to damage the economy of their own country.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Could the Minister not comment on the statement made in the Dáil on the intention of the Government in regard to the exercise of the powers I mentioned? We are in the difficulty of not having the Dáil report and knowing what was said.

Dr. Hillery

I would be in the same position if I had the report of other people's statements.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Surely we can have the statement of policy which was made by the Minister or the Taoiseach on how it is intended to operate the Bill?

Dr. Hillery

I was asked to speak on the amendment.

An Cathaoirleach

We are on the amendment and the section can be reviewed when the amendment is disposed of.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

One of the things that concern me, in regard to the need for a Prices Appeal Board, and which might influence some of the Senators behind me, is to know whether it is the intention of the Government to use these powers so as to exclude any price increases during this "emergency period" which are not caused by an increase in the price of materials. If this is the Government's intention as stated by the Taoiseach it could influence some Senators on the need for an Appeal Board. This is relative to the amendment and I wonder could the Minister enlighten us on this point.

Dr. Hillery

I have answered that. It would be done if the economic situation warranted it.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

The Taoiseach, on my recollection, stated in the Dáil that the Government did not intend to permit price increases within the control of the people concerned— manufacturers, retailers, or whoever it may be. He went on to say that increases would be accepted only where the cost of materials increased. If this is the Government's intention as to how they intend to operate the Bill, they would exclude any increases where wages had gone up. I think we ought to know what is the Government's intention. We ought also know what the Dáil was told by the Taoiseach. Surely the Minister is in a position to tell us whether this is the Government's policy as stated in the Dáil.

Dr. Hillery

This is a permissive Bill, and the Government would make an order if the economic situation warranted it. If the economic situation warrants what you say the Taoiseach said this will be done.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I am not satisfied. My recollection is not that the Taoiseach said in the Dáil that if there were an emergency and if an order were made the Government might use the powers. I understood him to say that the Government intended to use the powers in this way in an existing emergency as they saw it. Possibly the answer is that we should get the Dáil reports.

Dr. Hillery

What I am saying is that we would use the powers in the Bill if it were necessary. What is the difference between that and what the Taoiseach said?

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

There is a good deal of difference. In the event of a serious economic emergency, such as we are not faced with as the Taoiseach told us in his summing up speech, steps of this kind could be taken which would act against wages. I would wish to have an Appeals Board.

I was puzzled by the Minister's reference to an emergency in supplies and an emergency in prices.

Dr. Hillery

It is in the 1958 Act.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Could you not have an emergency in prices where there was not an emergency in supplies? If we had an emergency in prices operating in normal conditions competition should operate to keep prices under control. Could we be told, what has been happening recently to prevent such competition? Indeed, in most goods and services the prices of manufacture and supply are such that under present conditions competition does operate. If suddenly something should happen to stop competition operating in certain areas, surely it is not a matter for the Fair Trade Commission to intervene and take action.

We ought to be told what this elusive emergency is. It was a crisis to start with and now it is an emergency in prices. In the Seanad last week I attempted to analyse the reasons for this and the conclusions I came to, through a close analysis of the figures, show that, in fact, there is evidence that prices have risen because of a disproportionate increase in profits. Reluctantly in examining the figures, I came to this conclusion. This has happened only in areas where there is lack of competition. If there is lack of competition the Government should stimulate it instead of bringing in legislation of an arbitrary character.

We need more information as to what, in fact, this Bill is about. It must be said that there have been price increases attributable in part to disproportionate increases in profits and statistics show this fairly clearly. These increases represent a very small fraction of the total. At the absolute maximum they account for 2 per cent but my own view is that they account for one to one and a half per cent. It is quite clear from the figures published by the National Industrial Council and by the Statistics Office that the great bulk of the increases have nothing to do with increases in prices by manufacturers seeking to increase their profits.

Mr. E. Ryan

On a point of order, I submit that this is becoming a Second Reading Stage instead of Committee Stage.

An Cathaoirleach

All these matters can be discussed on the section. It is clear that Senator Garret FitzGerald has gone far away from the amendment. In view of the difficulties the Chair is anxious to facilitate the Senator but we cannot go too far.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I shall leave it at that for the moment and see whether I have persuaded the Minister to explain a little more fully the statement he made about an emergency in prices having arisen.

Dr. Hillery

Did I say there was an emergency in prices?

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

My recollection is that the Minister said the Bill was introduced because the provisions of the original Act did not cover an emergency in prices. What was said in the Dáil made it clear that the Government thought it a matter of great urgency that the Bill should be brought in.

Dr. Hillery

I should like to see the record.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

If there is not an emergency the Government do not intend to use the Bill and there is no urgency about it.

Dr. Hillery

I do not think that I said there was an emergency in prices.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

What description would the Minister apply to it?

Mr. O'Quigley

It might clarify the situation and help us to understand whether the amendment should be pressed if the Minister would indicate whether the Government intend to permit price increases due to wage and income increases, where wage and income increases are the cause of price increases.

Dr. Hillery

First of all, I did not say that competition had ceased to exist. If it were a matter of competition, I still had powers, under the 1958 Act, to deal with any unfair competition. I could, through the Fair Trade Commission, deal with any limitation of competition. I did not say a situation had come about where competition had ceased to exist. Neither did I say that this is temporary legislation being brought in and will be brought back when we are finished with it. I do not know how the Senator got that impression. The law is a difficult thing to understand. This Bill, if we get it through, is a permanent change in the 1958 Act. It is a permissive measure. It will permit the Government to make an order. I have explained the situation in which the Government would make such an order and that is an economic situation demanding much more immediate control by the Government of prices and their movements, in other words stability of prices.

It might be that immediately after the passage of the Bill the Government would make such an order and say that such a situation is now upon us. The Government may do this, and probably they will, and I will then take action. I have the powers to do so in the Bill. But when that period is over—it could be in two years' time—the Government of the day would say: "We need to use these powers now." How can I tell the Seanad today to what extent the powers might then be used? If it is necessary for the national wellbeing and the economic state of the country to fix prices regardless of anything this can be done and the Government would do it. I am not trying to hide anything. It is a protection of our economy. It is not an academic exercise.

Mr. Murphy

In other words, if a particular manufacturer agreed with the trade unions to give an increase to his workers—there might be good reasons for it—and it would be necessary, arising out of that, to adjust his prices, the Minister could foresee a situation when he would refuse permission to that manufacturer to adjust his prices.

Dr. Hillery

That is right. I do not think every increase in price should be passed on to the public.

Mr. Murphy

But there could be circumstances in which the increase could not be wholly absorbed by improved methods and where the manufacturer might have to pass on a certain proportion. Is the Minister saying he would intervene in such circumstances because, if so, he would, in fact, then he intervening in negotiations between the employers and the trade unions?

Dr. Hillery

If the protection of the national welfare required such action, then I would take it. I am not saying it is now necessary. The protection of workers' employment could require such action. This amendment is to deal with a serious economic situation which might cause unemployment.

Mr. Murphy

But surely we are trying to deal with a situation where people are too quick in passing on increases. We can all foresee a situation where some increases would have to be passed on. The Minister could say— well in the national interests I shall——

Dr. Hillery

I think the Senator rose to somebody else's fly there.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I am beginning to understand what the Bill is about which I have not done at all until now. The Minister has now said that if it is a question of prices rising because of lack of competition, that is not the problem. However, if prices rise despite the existence of competition and, in fact, there is adequate competition and people's profits are, therefore, at a minimum, the Minister then proposes, in these circumstances, to take power to control prices. I will be quite frank——

Dr. Hillery

May I say this? The gardaí have powers to investigate people who are not committing crimes. You must have powers to meet the bad situation.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Yes, but the Minister has said that if, in fact, there is lack of competition where people are exploiting the public he has powers to act. He has said, therefore, that the Bill is confined to cases where, hitherto, competition has been thought to provide protection, in circumstances where he can visualise an economic emergency arising where the Government would need to act to control prices and which will help to keep profits at a minimum. I really do not see what kind of situation could justify action which by definition would put people out of business. If you have adequate competition and profits are being kept down to a minimum, then any intervention to reduce prices must disrupt trade. I do not think the Minister intends anything of the kind.

I see only two purposes for this Bill. The first is to persuade the unions to moderate potential wage demands because the Government have shown unwillingness by introducing a price control measure; secondly, to put the Government in a position to exercise such pressure on firms not to concede wage increases because if they did so they would not be allowed to increase prices. These seem to me to be the only two possible uses for the Bill. If this is the case, I think we ought to know this but the suggestion that the Bill is to be used to deal with an emergency—a crisis which is not really a crisis all so elusive that the powers will probably be used immediately but we are not quite sure—is not a satisfactory explanation at all.

Dr. Hillery

I did not mean to give the impression that it was elusive. The Government sought these permissive powers as the Oireachtas was coming to the end of its session. We might need these powers and that is why we sought them. I am not saying the situation has changed. There is no doubt about it that we must take the situation seriously. I would not like Senators to get the impression that we are playing with this.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Is it the Minister's position then that there is a threatening economic situation which could get worse to a point at which these powers would need to be exercised but the Minister does not see the necessity at the moment for the powers in this Bill to be exercised? I think we are entitled to be told whether this section will be put into effect or not. The Government may feel that it will provide benefits, say better relations with the trade unions by bringing it in.

The Government might also feel that there have, in fact, been price increases which are thought to be undesirable, inappropriate and unnecessary and they wish to control these. If this is the case, I think we should be told.

It might be that the Government simply feel that there is a threatening economic situation and they would not like to be left without some corrective methods in steadily deteriorating circumstances where unnecessary price increases by manufacturers could threaten to disrupt our industrial economy and they wish to be in a position to act should such a situation arise. Either the Government feel a situation now exists that requires that this section should be introduced forthwith or they do not, but wish to have the power in case a radical change occurs in the situation. Which of the two situations does the Minister envisage? I must confess I am quite confused on this point at the moment.

Dr. Hillery

If the Senator listened to the statement by the Taoiseach in the Dáil he would be aware that he introduced—the detail does not matter —the Prices Bill as one of several lines of action in relation to developing trends in the economy which were undesirable and which we would have to take seriously or they would lead to a very serious economic situation. I think I cannot be clearer than that.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

The Minister means he could not be vaguer than that, as regards answering the question I put.

Dr. Hillery

I have not finished. I intend, as soon as I get the powers— it is not necessary, because of another amendment, to have a Government order—to have an immediate investigation, as I told the Dáil, on certain commodities, for instance, meat and potatoes. I intend, too, to establish a body to advise me on how best to utilise these powers. Many of the powers I seek here are powers of investigation.

As I told the Dáil, I do not know of any conspiracy by the traders and manufacturers to make undue profits but I do need the powers to investigate. If we find prices unduly raised we intend to bring them down. If we find attempted increases in prices, we intend to prevent them. Were it only to remove the suspicion which is widespread throughout our community that there are undue increases in prices, it would be worth having these investigations.

The answer to the question whether I regard the economic situation now as requiring an order by the Government is that I do. I think there should be an order soon by the Government giving me these powers of investigation.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I am now in a position to quote from what the Taoiseach said, which may bring us a bit further. He said, as reported at page Q.2. of the Stencilled Official Report of Dáil Éireann of 13th July, 1965:

The intention will be to control first and investigate later, and not to allow any increase during the process of investigation.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

That is contrary to what the Minister has said.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I agree. The Taoiseach continued:

No increase in price will be sanctioned where the justification offered is a cause within the control of the industry itself or, indeed, for any cause other than an unavoidable rise in the price of purchased materials or where its purpose is to increase margins earned on production, distribution and retail sale.

My quotation from memory was remarkably accurate. It seems to me that the intention of the Taoiseach of what to do with this Bill, when enacted, is an intention which, if carried out—and one must only assume that the Taoiseach meant what he said—would mean that any wage increase which was granted would be considered as not warranting a price increase. Any manufacturer is put on notice by that sentence that if this Bill goes through and if the Minister makes an order— which the Taoiseach indicated was the intention—if there is a wage increase, and he gives it, he will not be able to recover any of the increase by way of price increases because the Government will not let him.

Dr. Hillery

If it is necessary to do that, that is the way it will be done.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

The Taoiseach did not say that.

Dr. Hillery

I said it.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Minister has now answered Senator FitzGerald's question.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Is it the suggestion that the Taoiseach's statement is hypothetical? I have not read for a good while a firmer statement of intention than what the Taoiseach said. There was nothing whatever in that speech to the effect that it was something they might have to do if circumstances changed. He said:

The intention will be to control first and investigate later, and not to allow any increase during the process of investigation. No increase in price will be sanctioned...

It is not "would be sanctioned" if the powers under the Bill were taken. I do not think there is anything in the Dáil debate suggesting there was any doubt about the intention to bring this Bill into effect. The tenor of the debate was that there was an emergency, that a number of measures would be taken to deal with it, that this was one of them and that there was an urgency about getting these powers that are now needed. I do not know whether the Minister intends to bring these powers into force. Lastly, I had the impression that while there may not be an emergency which would justify the more stringent powers, it would be useful to have the powers so as to be able to investigate and to be able to say to the public that the increase was justified or, if not, to be able to take action against it.

In what kind or prices situation will these powers be used? I know of only three cases—(1) the cartel, monopoly, whatever you call it, which is a matter for the Fair Trade Commission; (2) there is free competition, in which case I do not see the nature of the problem which the Minister is endeavouring to tackle and (3) there is the case of the monopoly. There are no powers effectively to control monopolies and it may be that that is the kind of case the Minister would think of, although his reference to potatoes does not indicate this.

I am in doubt as to whether, in fact, the position of the Government has changed radically since the Taoiseach's speech or whether the Taoiseach's speech means what it says. I am in doubt as to whether there is any intention of bringing this into effect and for what purpose it will be brought into effect. I am in doubt as to whether, in fact, wage increases will not be allowed to be considered as a basis of price increases, as the Taoiseach has most firmly stated, or whether the Government have changed their view. This House is entitled to clarification. There is a lot of confusion—I hope I have not generated too much myself—but I feel it has been generated by the attempts furnished at clarification and the Minister's inability so far to give this House a clear idea of what is in his mind.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

May I suggest that the Minister has done so at least three times since this cross-talk began and that Senator FitzGerald has repeated himself three times?

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

Surely we are in Committee?

Dr. Hillery

If the clarification Senator Garret FitzGerald wants is for me to say something that would get all the headlines, if the headlines were there, it is one thing. We will take it that what the Taoiseach said there applies to anything that would raise the cost of living, in the circumstances of an order made by the Government.

The Government, having considered the economic situation to be such as to warrant stability of prices—this is written into the Bill—there will be some increases in prices which would not affect the cost of living but certainly the House may take it that it may be necessary to fix prices regardless of what the cost of the increase would be. I do not know how I have confused Senator Garret FitzGerald. All I seek in this Bill are powers of investigation and flexibility. Each item will have to be considered on its own merits. There could arise a situation where nothing would justify an increase in price and the Government would use the powers to prevent the increase.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

Is the Minister referring to past increases or to increases that may take place in the future?

Dr. Hillery

There are enough powers in the Bill to go back into past increases and to investigate them, if the Minister thinks it necessary to do so.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

These are the increases which we should like the Government to look into—increases that have taken place since the ninth round.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

For the purpose of clarification, may I ask and get a clear reply to this question? Is it still the position, as was indicated clearly by the Taoiseach in his speech, that the Government consider that there exists a condition in the national economy at this moment such as that it is necessary to maintain stability of prices generally and that they intend, as soon as this Bill is passed and signed, to make an order under the Act bringing this section of the Act into operation? Could we perhaps have the answer to that, first, because a lot depends on that?

Dr. Hillery

This would be anticipating a decision of the Government. However, I make the answer that I think this order will be made immediately the Bill is passed.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

We can take it that the present intention of the Government is to put this measure into effect. That being the case, I refer again to the Taoiseach's statement:

No increase in price will be sanctioned where the justification offered is a cause within the control of the industry itself or, indeed, for any cause other than an unavoidable rise in the price of purchased materials or where its purpose is to increase margins earned on production, distribution and retail sale.

When this is brought into effect will the Government act in accordance with the Taoiseach's statement or has the position of the Government on this changed since the Taoiseach made the statement?

Dr. Hillery

The Government's intention is to prevent increases in prices and to bring about stability as far as possible. While this statement would seem to indicate a rigid attitude, I want to maintain some flexibility in the application of the powers under the Bill. The intention of the Government will be to keep prices stable at any cost but not at the cost of gross unemployment. This is where I think the Senator opposite interpreted the debate wrongly. Employment could be threatened by rising prices just as by keeping them down at any cost. The intention is generally to keep prices stable in the present situation.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I appreciate the Minister's desire to maintain flexibility.

Dr. Hillery

There are some articles that would not affect the cost of living and I would not bother with them.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I appreciate that. Perhaps the Taoiseach overstated the position. Maybe his statement here is not to be taken too literally. If that is the case, it is helpful to have that clarification. Nevertheless, the position that has emerged in the present situation, which is far from being a national emergency, is that it is being viewed by the Government as such that these powers should be brought into effect. The kind of situation we are in at the moment is one which could recur relatively frequently. The kind of price increase we have had, attributable to excessive increases in profits, is the kind of situation that could recur fairly frequently without any very special economic situation. In the light of that, the powers under this Bill are powers which could be exercised fairly frequently. If these powers are to be necessary in our present situation, which is far from being desperately serious, they are powers which could be exercised fairly frequently during the life of our economy. Therefore, it is all the more necessary that there should, in fact, be a special appeal board.

I think I appreciate the points made by Senator E. Ryan that, perhaps, the amendment, as drafted, is unduly wide and that the use of the words "any person or company aggrieved" is so broad as to bring in people who have no direct interest. If it is suggested that under the amendment as drafted the appeal board would have no right but to quash the order or let it stand—no right to amend it—I would be only too happy to accept any amendment of this amendment the Minister might propose. From what Senator E. Ryan said, I gather his objection was to the breadth of the amendment rather than the principle it contains. It seems to me, in view of the possible hardship involved in this and the possible serious effects on individuals and groups of people, if this power were easily exercised inaccurately—I shall not say anything harsher than that—a procedure of some kind is necessary. I ask the Minister whether he would not be prepared to consider some type of appeal machinery, even if the particular amendment here is not drafted in a way he would find it possible to accept.

Dr. Hillery

The difference between what the Taoiseach said and the flexibility I want to hold is this. The Taoiseach said there will be no increase in prices. Therefore, you will stop prices and investigate afterwards. This puzzled people in the Dáil, too. I said I would investigate. But such holding of prices does not go far enough. We will have to investigate price rises that already occurred. That is the difference. We will have both this prevention of price increases in the future plus an investigation of the past rises. That is not contradictory even though it may appear to be. The Taoiseach is talking about a rise in prices and stopping it. I am talking about, in addition, price increases which I cannot stop now but which I can investigate.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

The Taoiseach's statement did make that clear. He distinguished clearly between the intention to control future increases first and ask questions afterwards. He stated clearly:

No increase in price will be sanctioned where the justification offered is a cause within the control of the industry itself or, indeed, for any cause other than an unavoidable rise in the price of purchased materials or where its purpose is to increase margins earned on production, distribution and retail sale.

He went on to deal with past price increases. My concern is lest a future wage increase which necessitates an increase in prices would not be accepted as a reason for a price increase. It is this sentence of the Taoiseach relating to future price increases which bothers me.

Mr. O'Quigley

Now that we have been permitted to widen the scope of the debate, due to your indulgence, Sir, it is easier to see the necessity for an amendment of this kind. I think the Minister has made clear that this is a piece of permanent legislation being put into the 1958 Act, that it will stick and remain. If that is the case, one can see readily that the six-monthly order will be renewed from six months to six months and that it will become a permanent feature of the prices structure of certain industries.

The Minister will concede in relation to the activities of the Fair Trade Commission that, once the Commission has held its inquiry and sent its report to the Minister, the Minister naturally approaches that report in a judicial way. Sometimes he acts on it and in some cases he does not. That, in itself, is a form of appeal from the decision of the Fair Trade Commission. After that, if effect is to be given to the recommendations of the Fair Trade Commission, there is a further right of appeal because the order to be made by the Minister has to be confirmed by the Oireachtas. In cases of that kind the principle of accepting an appeal where there has been a full investigation by an impartial body such as the Fair Trade Commission should urge upon the Minister the necessity of having something similar in what is now quite clearly going to be permanent legislation.

I do not think what Senator FitzGerald has in mind in this amendment should give rise to difficulties to which Senator Ryan referred. Quite clearly from the section—if it requires to be clarified that can be done on Report Stage—the appeal is an appeal from the price fixed by the Minister. This Prices Appeal Board would consider that and would not merely set aside the order. Having considered it, it would either affirm the order or vary it. I do not think that gives rise to any difficulty. There may be some miscalculation, some factors which were not given due consideration by the Minister and his advisers which the Appeal Board might think should be also considered. In the light of that a variation of the order can be made. I am quite satisfied in my own mind that this right of appeal should exist. It exists under the Fair Trade Commission. Since this will be permanent legislation, it is quite necessary to have it, the Minister being assured always that once the appeal is being heard in public —and that is one of the merits of the amendment—the number of appeals will not be great but I do think the safeguard should exist.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I thought the Minister might, perhaps, be replying again to my last appeal to him, if I may use the word "appeal", as to whether he would not consider some form of appeal board even if the amendment in its present form is one that he has difficulty in accepting.

Professor Jessop

I listened to the debate with great interest and I can see the arguments advanced from both sides. I have been wondering if the advisory bodies referred to in section 22B, which will come immediately after the amendment proposed by Senator FitzGerald, could in any way be used by the Minister to hear sort of post mortem objections and advise him and act in that way as a kind of appeal body without particularly specifying a separate body for the purpose of appeal.

Dr. Hillery

Take the Taoiseach's statement that price increases in items affecting the cost of living will not be tolerated. He made some exceptions in circumstances. Why should there be an appeal from the Government to some independent body? The Government are responsible for taking care of the economic situation and for taking quick action. Many of the powers of investigation that I seek in this Bill are powers that allow for quick action. Why should the Government have some body not entrusted with the care of the economic situation there as an appeal body over the decisions of the Government in a situation of economic difficulties?

As I said starting off, the Senators who proposed this amendment saw the activity of the Minister under this amendment of the Bill as taking place in normal circumstances. I see it in circumstances where the Government have to act and have to act very strictly and sometimes very swiftly. So, I do not think I could accept it.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

The whole thing has emerged from the debate. The Bill is expressed in terms which imply a very serious economic situation of such character as justifying emergency action by the Government that would override natural justice in the short term. In fact, the Minister has spoken in terms that make it clear that what he has in mind are cases where prices might be held down, even though this would be unfair to the people concerned, because price stability must take priority in this national emergency over justice to the particular interest concerned.

We all accept in a genuine national emergency that the rights of the individual may have to be tampered with if not actually trampled on and during the war this was accepted but what disturbs me is the fact that, having said that, and having explained his intentions to act in this way, running contrary to the rights of individuals and contrary to any desirable way of operating in an economy under normal conditions, the Minister then indicated his intention, the probability, the near certainty, that this section will be brought into operation as soon as the Bill is passed, brought into operation at a time when it is evident that we are not facing a national emergency and the Taoiseach could not have made that clearer in his summing up speech in the Dáil.

In these circumstances I do not see that you can justify it. The Minister's justification, in fact, was really that this Bill gave him powers to investigate— there were a couple of things that he wanted to look at, that some funny business was going on—and he would be able to use these powers. It is quite inappropriate that the Minister should take powers to deal with an emergency and bring them into effect when there was no emergency and refuse a right of appeal and bring them into effect in order to investigate a few things where there is funny business going on. I do not see how this can be justified.

The Bill seems to be wrongly geared. We need an adequate prices investigation mechanism. If the Minister has not the powers that under normal conditions are reasonable he should take them and he will get support from all Parties but to take powers, not merely to investigate prices, but to control and reduce them without any appeal under quite normal economic circumstances, in no way out of the way and far from an emergency, simply because he wants to investigate a few cases, is quite inappropriate. If the Minister insists on doing that, we must press the right of appeal. If the powers were only to be used in a genuine emergency one might have to consider forgetting about an appeal but when the Minister has made it clear that it is not his intention so to act but that he will introduce this section under relatively normal conditions, I do not see in those circumstances that he can resist the right of appeal.

Mr. E. Ryan

It seems to me that Senator FitzGerald by his last contribution has really undermined any case that could be made for this amendment because he is now admitting that if this Bill will only be operated in an emergency, he can see the point that there should not be an appeal board but that if it is to be operated in any other circumstances there would be a case for an appeal board. From what the Minister has said it is clearly the Government's intention that this will operate only in an emergency. Consequently by implication, Senator FitzGerald is agreeing that there is no need for an appeal board.

Mr. O'Quigley

I thought the Minister said a while ago that there was no emergency.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

The Minister denies that he used the word "emergency" but also said that he intended to bring this Bill into effect in circumstances which, according to him, are not an emergency.

Dr. Hillery

I said that I cannot anticipate Government decisions.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I said the Minister indicated his intention of bringing the Bill into effect, although he also denied any emergency. That is what worries me. By emergency I mean something of the kind that you have in war time when there is an artificial shortage of a wide range of essential commodities or runaway inflation such as there is in Uruguay or Brazil. I do not mean the normal little fluctuations in the economy of the kind the Taoiseach in his summing up speech described fairly accurately in the Dáil.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed?

Dr. Hillery

I could point out that the orders made under this Act have to be placed before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

That should keep the Seanad busy next year. I would press the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Murphy

I move amendment No 2:

In page 8, between lines 6 and 7 to insert a new paragraph as follows:—

"(h) in the Second Schedule by the substitution for subparagraph (5) of paragraph 11 of the following subparagraph:

`(5) an enquiry by an Advisory Committee shall not be held wholly or partly in private, except by the unanimous decision of such Advisory Committee.' "

This is a very simple amendment. We are now amending the 1958 Prices Act and what I am suggesting is that we should go a little further with the amendment of it. One of the complaints of the trade unions about the policy of the Government in regard to prices, about the work of the Prices Advisory Committees, has been the fact that investigations carried out by these committees are in all cases held in private. There is provision in the 1958 Act that the Minister may direct the whole or part of the work of investigation of the committee to be held in public but normally the work of investigation by a committee into prices is conducted in private.

I was struck by what the Minister said a few moments ago in dealing with the earlier amendment. He used words to the effect "if only to remove suspicions about prices which suspicions are rampant". That is the very point I have here. I do not expect that on investigation a committee will find in all cases that prices are unduly high and that that will result in a lowering of prices. The Minister is being clever in providing that there will be an investigation now into prices of meat and potatoes. We all know, of course, that the rises in the prices of these two commodities are due to factors which cannot be controlled either by the Minister or by anybody else. The potato harvest last year was bad. That has led to an increase in the price of potatoes. The Minister cannot go back and the Prices Advisory Committee cannot go back and do anything about last year's harvest.

Dr. Hillery

Distribution.

Mr. Murphy

Distribution, yes. I am afraid the Minister is taking two items here which will be investigated and the probability is that the findings as a result will be that the prices are not unduly high. I do not know but I am a little suspicious of the Minister deciding that he would take these two items for a start.

What I want to urge on the House is that if there are to be investigations by an advisory committee appointed by the Minister into any price or set of prices, it would be in everybody's interest that those investigations be held in public. Investigations behind closed doors, in private, without anybody knowing what is going on, what figures have been furnished, what case has been made, are not good. That does not build up the atmosphere which should exist in regard to prices.

I often feel that too many people go into distribution, that too much money is made on distribution and that not enough talent and enterprise are put into production, into manufacturing. There is too much capital tied up in distribution because apparently it is very easy to make good money in that form of business. There are people with offices in Dublin who are drawing very big incomes out of the passing through of bills or invoices. They never see the commodities; only the papers pass through their hands. That is paid for eventually by the consumer.

I should like to see a situation where there would have to be a justification in public, where, if people wanted to increase prices, they would have to appear before the public bar to justify their case if they can, the same way as trade unions claiming increases for members have to go before the Labour Court; they do not have to but it is the normal practice that they appear before the Labour Court in public to make their case. Sometimes they get an increase, other times they do not, but the fact is that they are subject to public investigation which in many cases is a good thing. I want to urge on the Minister the desirability of having future investigations of the advisory committees held in public.

We are also providing in the amendment that where the advisory committee itself by unanimous decision considers it necessary or desirable that the investigation should be held in private, they would have power to do so. I want to ensure that the normal situation would be that the hearing would be in public. That would be good for the economy. It would be good for the manufacturers themselves and it would be good for the consumers who would know exactly what the situation is. If prices are found to be right and proper, the consumer would feel some satisfaction that he was not being mulcted by some faceless people. I hope the Minister will accept this proposal which I think would improve the Bill and improve the general atmosphere in regard to prices investigation. I trust the House will support the amendment.

Mr. Cole

I am not quite sure whether I understand what Senator Murphy was advocating. Supposing there was an inquiry into articles of the same type made by different firms where it was suggested there was an agreed fixed price. While there might be this agreed fixed price there would be a certain amount of competition, perhaps, in the way the final product of each firm was made, and one might make slightly more profit than the other. It would be unreasonable to expect one firm to go into a public inquiry and disclose to the other firm manufacturing the same article its methods of manufacture, what such and such a process costs, how it was done, why it cost that much. I cannot see that disclosing the whole business administration, organisation and costs of a firm to the public and to competitors would be advisable at all.

Mr. Crowley

I did not intend to rise in connection with this amendment were it not for the remarks of the last speaker. It is too late in the day to say that we ought to take into account the feelings or the likes and dislikes of the people who really control prices. I cannot see precisely what objection there could possibly be to this amendment. To suggest it is merely because some people might not like to disclose their methods or their costs to a tribunal of this sort is the worst possible argument that could be advanced against this amendment.

Senator Murphy pointed out, and I want to emphasise it, that if any section of workers put forward a claim for increased wages or salaries, in the vast majority of cases they are virtually obliged by the force of public opinion to make that case in public. Even when the case is made in public it is still doubtful whether they can sustain the claim simply because the force of public opinion may not be behind them. Surely Senator Cole is not suggesting we should shield manufacturers, the people who control prices, from that.

Mr. Cole

No.

Mr. Crowley

I accept that, if I took the Senator up wrongly. This amendment is intended to improve the Bill and I strongly urge the Minister to accept it. Unless he does I believe the validity of his Bill will not be accepted by the public and the motive behind the Bill will be open to a great deal of doubt and suspicion. The Government must ensure that justice is not only done but is seen to be done and the only way that can be done is by carrying out these investigations normally in public. If there was a danger of any real damage being done to any section of industry by such a public inquiry the inquiry could be conducted in camera, as provided in the amendment, but that decision should be taken only by the body to whom we are about to entrust this responsibility, and by nobody else. In the amendment the advisory committee will be empowered to decide for itself whether or not an inquiry should be held in camera. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment. I believe it will improve his Bill and, not only improve it, but convince people that justice is about to be done at long last in relation to this vital question of prices.

Dr. Hillery

Senator Murphy talked about people fearing being mulcted by faceless men. Any investigation carried out depends for its success upon the presence of everybody affected by it. The report made to the Minister is afterwards discussed by those affected and the Minister is, as Senators are aware, responsible to the Dáil. I explained that I have tried to get as much flexibility as possible in the Minister's investigations and in his activities. He could investigate departmentally, which would be swift. He could investigate through advisory committees. I have proposed a permanent change in the 1958 Act to extend the powers of the committee to the selling of goods apart from just manufacture and the wholesale and retail levels. The committees can hold their investigations in public. There is also power to set up advisory bodies to which the Minister can, by order, give the powers that will be conferred on him by this Bill.

Mr. Murphy

They cannot hold their investigations in public unless the Minister, by warrant, directs them to do so.

Dr. Hillery

I am coming to that. I think there will be cases in which it would be undesirable, perhaps, even damaging, to have the investigations in public. There will be cases, too, in which there might be too long a delay. The Minister, I believe, should be responsible for deciding whether an investigation will be held in public. The Bill seeks power for the Minister to hold public investigations. It would be too rigid a straitjacket to write into this measure that everything would be done in public and the Minister's responsibility abrogated by a majority decision of an advisory committee set up by him. In the circumstances envisaged in the amendment the full responsibility must, I think, fall on the Minister to do everything he can to stabilise prices and no responsibility must be handed over to another body.

Mr. Murphy

Would the Minister tell us exactly what the position is under the 1958 Act? Are the investigations conducted in private except on direction of the Minister?

Dr. Hillery

I am asking that ministerial responsibility stay with the Minister.

Mr. Murphy

Would the Minister tell us how many times he has directed an investigation to be held in public?

Dr. Hillery

There has never been any so far as I know, certainly none in my time.

Mr. Murphy

All were in private. That has been the consistent policy.

Dr. Hillery

The degree of privacy was not so great as the Senator seems to think. The people concerned were at the inquiry.

Mr. Murphy

The people concerned are the public who have to pay the prices.

Dr. Hillery

The Minister is responsible to the public in trying to stabilise prices.

Mr. Murphy

I know the Minister is a great man, but I am talking now about public opinion.

Dr. Hillery

The Minister is seeking power to hold these investigations in public, if he sees fit.

Mr. Murphy

Where is that amendment?

Dr. Hillery

It is in the setting up of the bodies.

Mr. Murphy

How will they stand in relation to the Prices Advisory Committee?

Dr. Hillery

It will be a separate type of investigation.

Mr. Murphy

A separate type of investigation?

Dr. Hillery

I want flexibility. I could have a departmental investigation. I am seeking to extend the investigations made by the prices advisory committees. I also seek power to set up advisory bodies which could hold public investigations and use all the powers the Minister will have, so long as the Minister gives them these powers in an order setting up the bodies. He can also set up a body to advise him how to use his powers. What I am seeking is flexibility and powers as extensive as may be required by a Minister setting out to stabilise prices. I could not regard any limitation on that as an improvement.

Mr. Murphy

I am still far from clear as to how prices advisory committees will stand in relation to the prices advisory bodies the Minister talks about providing.

Mr. O'Quigley

There will be no relationship.

Mr. Murphy

Is there a difference?

Mr. O'Quigley

There is. It will be a special emergency body.

Dr. Hillery

I have been through all this before. Prices advisory committees are limited in their constitutions to not fewer than three and not more than five and they must be selected from a panel set up under the 1958 Act. From that panel the Minister can set up a committee. But I am seeking extra power for the Minister to set up a body of any size, constituted as he wishes, without limitation, and selected as he decides. This is an added power. The prices advisory committees are limited under the 1958 Act.

Mr. Murphy

Will the Minister tell us what is his general intention? Is it to have these investigations in private, as has happened with the Prices Advisory Body up to now, or will he change the policy and will he be a little more flexible? I can envisage a situation in which all, or part, of an investigation could not be held in public. In a particular instance it might be desirable to hold it in private, but I think that would be the exception. What I should like to get from the Minister is whether there will be a change in policy in this matter and whether he will exercise his power to have these investigations, as far as possible, in public so that the public will know what is going on.

Dr. Hillery

That is the reason why I sought power to set up the bodies. It would be much easier for the Minister to have a public investigation, with all the facts before the public, and that is what I should like to see; but there will be circumstances in which that could do harm.

Mr. Murphy

We accept that.

Dr. Hillery

The Minister will have to ensure that a price increase is justified and he will have to take all the punishment the public may wish to mete out. What the Senator suggests would be much easier, but it could do harm. We are looking for flexibility and the intention is, where a price increase is justified, to show the public that the price increase is necessary.

Mr. Murphy

We can expect then that, where it is reasonable in the judgment of the Minister to have an investigation in public, it will be held in public.

Dr. Hillery

That is right.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill".

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I would remind Senators that section 1 covers seven pages and practically constitutes the entire Bill.

Mr. Murphy

Would it be helpful if we took 22A and 22B and discussed these?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

If Senators wish to make an informal arrangement that might expedite proceedings.

Mr. O'Quigley

We will confine ourselves to section 22A. It will be an exercise in self-discipline. There are just a few points I wish to make. They are more in the nature of inquiries in regard to the extent of the powers taken in this section. I was interested to hear the Minister say he was going to investigate the price of beef, meat and potatoes.

Dr. Hillery

The distribution.

Mr. O'Quigley

One can only regret that that inquiry was not instituted much earlier. The price of potatoes has gone out of bounds altogether and I am quite certain it is not the farmers or the potato pickers—there are very few of the latter left—who are reaping the benefit of the high prices. I can see considerable difficulties facing a body investigating the price of potatoes because the invariable experience is that in every stone of potatoes there are two or three that are black and bad.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Two or three?

Mr. O'Quigley

At the minimum. While not very relevant on this section, this seems to be due to the failure on the part of our farmers to spray potatoes. Very few farmers in the east of Ireland——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I think we can leave the spraying of potatoes to another day.

Mr. O'Quigley

It may not be within the scope of the Bill but I cannot see any way of helping in that regard. Perhaps they may be able to grade them. I notice that in sub-paragraph 2 of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) the Minister will be entitled to enquire into the charges made for rendering a specified service or specified services. I wonder in that context whether that will include—although it does not directly relate to the cost of living but it does affect the economy in a wider sphere—inquiring into hotel prices. It seems that in modern times the services provided by a great number of our hotels have vastly improved; they have certainly improved in the last five or ten years, but there has been an altogether disproportionate increase in prices. It is certainly true to say that in and around the city of Dublin the prices of meals in hotels at present are fantastic and people are deserting the hotels in the middle of the city and going to eat in more reasonably priced hotels outside. That may be all right but people do not have to eat out in hotels on Saturday evenings and at times like that. The truth of the matter is that Dublin and Dublin hotels may well provide the pattern for hotel prices for the rest of the country and great damage can be done to the hotel industry through the exorbitant prices—and I have no hesitation in so labelling them—being charged by hotels of certain kinds in Dublin city and to a lesser extent in other hotels throughout the country.

Only a minority are charging these exorbitant prices. It is not merely my view that they are exorbitant; that is the general view of people I talk to. These prices are just out of reach of the ordinary person. I shall be very pleased if the Minister inaugurates an inquiry into that aspect of charges for services being made and I have little doubt it will do a great deal to restrain further price increases in our hotels.

There is another situation developing which seems to me to call for some kind of investigation. With the development of supermarkets nowadays, or self-service stores, where most goods are priced it seems that housewives and consumers do not know at any time what is the price of a particular commodity: these prices are constantly being changed and the net effect of it is that housewives do not know what the price should be, the normal price which would be charged by the family grocery shop in the smaller towns and even on the outskirts of the city. All that changing of prices, which are lower today and higher tomorrow, has only one purpose and that is to extract the maximum amount of money from the consuming public. It is not like shuffling a pack of cards and playing patience; it is not for any purpose like that that the owner of a supermarket or a big store carries on this juggling with prices. The net effect of it is to take more and more money out of the pockets of the consuming public.

While it is very difficult to see what can be done to rectify that position, I hope the Minister will use whatever powers he has under this section to deal with that. Indeed, he might invoke his powers under section 19 of the Prices Act, 1958, to require the prices of certain commodities to be exhibited in public in shops in whatever areas he decides by order. The only difficulty about that is that section 19 is related merely to commodities in the Third Schedule. I should hope that if as a result of the investigation the Minister finds it necessary to do so, he will extend the list of commodities in the Third Schedule to the Prices Act.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I think the Senator is going beyond section 1 in recommending further changes.

Mr. O'Quigley

I am merely saying that the Minister may well have power to do that and if he decides to do so I hope his investigations will lead him in that direction and that the price stability which is sought in the Bill will result.

These are the main items with which I am concerned. I am satisfied that with the growth of the supermarkets, while it may at present appear to result in lower prices for certain commodities, the end result will be a huge monopoly after the smaller businesses have been closed and gone out of existence. Then more drastic powers will be required and it would be a very short step from the huge monopoly to State control of the distributive trade which I do not think would be altogether good when one looks at some of the efforts of State bodies in relation to business matters. I hope that the warning this Bill will serve to give to people in the retail trade will be taken to heart especially in regard to those larger concerns and I hope that their whole outlook in regard to price increases will be changed and that the final result will be a greater stability in prices.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I should like to re-echo the hope expressed by Senator O'Quigley and to express my thorough agreement with him in his remarks on hotel prices, but if I understood him correctly I think he was putting all the blame on Dublin hotels or at least indicating that they were the pioneers in the price rises. I fear the menace extends much further and that hotels in rural areas are just as guilty. We had the sad spectacle last week of a gentleman, who brought a party of Irish people from the United States on a tour of the South, making complaints which have now gone to Bord Fáilte in regard to the prices charged for bed and breakfast, for bacon and eggs and for lunch in some of the hotels in which the party stayed. These prices were so atrocious that they constitute not merely a menace but also a very serious blemish on the good name and on the honesty of hotel proprietors here.

We also had comments recently by a lady who writes for a reputable English Sunday newspaper, and who has proved herself a very staunch friend of Ireland in regard to tourism, in the course of which she castigated some of the prices charged in parts of rural Ireland.

Mr. O'Quigley

Was that in Clare?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I am afraid the matter extends much further than Senator O'Quigley indicated in Dublin. I hope the Minister will set up a body to look at this before we are priced completely out of the tourist market. I know that the price of drink is under investigation by the Fair Trade Commission——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

And should not be commented on.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

——but I hope that whatever inquiry the Minister may make about hotel prices for food and lodgings he will also keep a fatherly eye on the prices charged for drinks in hotels. With regard to Senator O'Quigley's suggestion about a displayed price list, I should like to see something on those lines not alone in supermarkets but in hotels and not merely just one price list displayed in a corner but one displayed in every public room in the hotel because of the effect these prices are having on visitors on whom we depend to a great extent for the very considerable revenue we got from tourism in recent years. I should like to see a list displaying prices for drinks and food in every public room in every hotel under the control of Bord Fáilte.

Mr. Cole

I should like to support what has been said by Senator O'Quigley and Senator Ó Maoláin. I had complaints from Canadian visitors in this regard and one complaint which they made was that they stayed here for an extra night, over and above what had been booked for them through a tourist agency in Toronto. They stayed with the full permission of the hotel and for that extra night they were charged nearly double the price they had been asked when they booked in Canada. Friends of theirs from Canada also had complaints particularly about the prices they were charged in Dublin hotels and I suppose the same applies elsewhere. In regard to prices I, as a farmer, need go no further than our own restaurant where we find that a second egg, for scrambled eggs, costs 11d, when the farmer is getting 1½d for the egg. Perhaps that is another matter the Minister might investigate.

Mr. Honan

The control of prices and the permanent display of a list of prices are important but nowadays when people go into shops they find that with this new method of packaging it is almost impossible to determine what is in the package. It is not much use knowing the price if you do not know what is in the package. There are all sorts of new devices by which bottles, for instance, can be made to look big and in regard to tins you find that often while they give the gross or net weight they are practically full of liquid. Before the implementation of this Bill is tackled some standard will have to be laid down and packages will have to display, on the outside, what is alleged to be contained in them. Unless there is such control I do not see how we can get effective control of prices. Housewives are complaining that they are buying big packets at cut prices but when they open them they find that they are half empty. I hope that the powers in this Bill will be adequate to control these matters but if they are not the Minister should insert them,

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

If I may return to section 22 (a) for a moment, I should like to say, first of all, that I am sorry that in moving the amendment it was necessary for me—because of the peculiar way in which the debate has gone backwards, ending up with an ever-widening Second Reading—to subject the Minister to something of an inquisition. I think he will appreciate that the wording of the Taoiseach's speech did give rise to some confusion of thought. He has helped to clarify it, however, by saying that he adopts a more flexible approach to that indicated in the Taoiseach's speech. That is a good thing. This Bill contains much that is good and we all welcome anything that improves the Minister's powers of investigation.

The Minister feels that his powers were inadequate and has set out to strengthen them and this is to be welcomed. In the Dáil he accepted an amendment which gave him power to require price notification in certain sectors. This is an important and valuable power and a power which I am sure he will find it useful to exercise so that he can be kept informed of changes in sensitive areas where he has reason to believe that prices would rise in a manner which would be regarded as being regrettable. I hope the Minister in the exercise of his administrative powers will—and I suggested this on Second Reading—go further as regards price publicity and that his Department will undertake some activities to bring home to people a realisation of the prices at which goods are available in different places and in different shops so that the people may have some standard by which to judge prices and have some guidance on where to go to get the best value at the lowest price.

As regards the price control elements in the Bill, I am less happy because it seems to me—and this has emerged from what the Minister said—that there is confusion of thought here about what type of control is to be exercised and for what purpose. As I see it, and I have been thinking this over, there are several different cases in which price control can be justified. One is where there is a monopoly or a cartel. While our existing restrictive trading legislation has power to deal adequately with cases of price fixing by groups of firms, it is not geared adequately to deal with monopolies. Apart from the case of monopolies fixing prices higher than they reasonably should be, you also get cases where an enterprise is not itself a monopoly in the sense of being the only such concern but has a monopoly of location. One could visualise the case of a shop in an area in which it was the only shop and because of this fact they would find it possible to charge higher prices. Where there is evidence that there is this kind of monopoly and it is being abused, we would welcome ifs control. You also have the case where there is an artificial shortage of supplies and this type of case is visualised in and covered by existing legislation and, as the Minister said, this is not the problem arising now.

Thirdly, there is the case which I still feel is visualised behind this legislation, the possible desirability of discouraging firms from undertaking avoidable increases in costs. This does seem to be implicit in what the Taoiseach said even if the Minister intends to operate it more flexibly. Nonetheless, it is not impossible that he may find it desirable to move in the same direction. One could visualise that the Minister would indicate to firms, if they increased their costs in a way which can be avoided, for instance, by wage increases, in particular circumstances at a particular time, that he will not permit price increases, but where the power is exercised in that case or in the other two instances there is a strong case for some kind of appeal. In these cases, certainly in the first and third, we are not dealing with an emergency.

The fourth instance, and it is what really worries me, is where there is a genuine emergency, runaway circumstances of some kind which threatens the whole stability of the economy and where, for the time being, the Government might find it necessary to forget about justice for every individual and impose price control even involving temporary injustice. I accept that an appeal could be inappropriate in that kind of situation. What worries me is the extraordinary confusion of thought which gives the Minister useful powers for normal circumstances, strengthening powers to require price modification, and muddles it up with this absolute power, without appeal, in a national emergency so that the two move inextricably together.

The Minister has to call into operation this emergency legislation which gives him power to act, yet he still has to resist any question of a right to appeal though it would be necessary and desirable in other cases in normal circumstances and times. The Bill has evolved from a period of confusion of thought and it is something of a botch because of this. When it has been in operation for a while and when the Minister sees how it is working, he may be able to come back with a revision of the prices legislation—this Bill and the previous Act—and consolidate it to separate circumstances of grave national emergency from more normal circumstances, providing no right of appeal in an emergency and a right of appeal in normal circumstances. He may also be able to provide other improvements.

I support the suggestion of a Senator on the other side on the need for legislation to require the contents of bottles and containers to be stated. It is something which might be looked at in conjunction with price control and price investigation. It is not adequately covered by the Bill and it should be given attention.

On the question of hotels, I must, first of all, declare my interest because my presence here has its origin in that I was nominated by the Irish Hotel Federation. I merely comment that one factor affecting prices, particularly in Dublin, and which is not adequately recognised is that in Dublin the relevant trade union has been extremely active in organising labour. Labour in the hotel trade in Dublin is well organised and this is not the case in other countries or other capital cities. Mostly in other countries hotels, by their very nature, attract casual labour, whereas here we have relatively permanent employment.

In other countries, outside labour is attracted and in London recently we had the Savoy Hotel trying to get an injunction to prevent a film being shown on the subject. In other cities outside this country employees of hotels get about £5 or £6 per week. No doubt they get ample tips as well. In Dublin, where there is proper union activity, the level of wages is twice as high as in London and other cities. This is a factor we must have regard to. It is a disturbing one. One cannot say the union concerned should not have organised hotel labour and I do not wish to suggest it, but it is a problem for our tourist industry. Neither would one suggest that the Irish Transport and General Workers Union should set about organising hotel workers in Paris, London, Stockholm and elsewhere. The fact that they have moved in this field creates a relative problem for the hotels here.

Reference was made to a newspaper columnist and her comments on hotel prices. I read that article and I read one on Sunday last in which she placed emphasis on the ridiculous situation where you can in Dublin get a suite for £25 a day, whereas you could not get it for £50 a day elsewhere. I do not think that would appeal to every Senator. We are going through a period of national expansion in the hotel industry and while stringent action should be taken in cases where prices are higher than those notified to Bord Fáilte, there should not be action in such a way as to inhibit progress in development. I do not wish to labour the point further.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I should like to correct the Senator on one point on which he seems to be misinformed. Unfortunately, the hotel industry is not as well organised in a union as the Senator suggests. Unfortunately, there are many hotels in Dublin which are not unionised and the same applies throughout the country. If the Senator adduces as the reason for the increased prices in hotels here that they are organised in the union he is far off the pin.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

It is relevant to prices in the type of establishment whose prices are causing people to comment because the larger hotels in Dublin are organised in a union and are charging high prices in relation to other cities. I agree there are hotels in Dublin where union labour is not employed but the same price range does not apply.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

When this Bill goes on the Statute Book it will give the Government and the Minister for Industry and Commerce extensive powers. I hope this Bill will not be pigeonholed as the 1958 Act was, very little being done about it until an emergency of some kind arose. We in the Labour Party have been advocating price control for a long number of years, more especially since the introduction of the turnover tax which was taken advantage of by many unscrupulous profiteers to increase prices to such an extent that when the turnover tax came into effect prices had gone up by far more than 2½ per cent.

Then, when the ninth round of wage increases came along we discovered that profiteers again took advantage of a benefit given to workers to help them meet the cost of living as it then was. I was very pleased to hear the Minister say today that not alone will he utilise the powers he is being given in this Bill to control prices but that he will also investigate prices that have been increased so greatly in the past two years. That is something we welcome and I sincerely hope the Minister will use all the powers he has in this Bill, which is a test of the Government's sincerity to move to control prices. It is only by investigating prices as they are at the moment that we can possibly effect a reduction in those prices. I believe that the Minister intends to do that and I welcome it. I wish him every success in his efforts to reduce prices.

Dr. Hillery

The Senators, repeatedly, have used the phrases "grave national emergency" and "national crisis" and they ask me to either say there is a crisis or there is not a crisis. Section 22A does not mention crisis. It says:

Whenever and so often as the Government are satisfied that the condition of the national economy is such that it is necessary to maintain stability of prices generally, the Government may by order...

It does not say in a situation of crisis or emergency. The word "emergency" has been introduced into the situation by others, not by me. If there seems to be a variation between what the Taoiseach said in the Dáil and what I said it would be because the Taoiseach was dealing with matters which affect the cost of living index and in this he wanted to indicate, and I would go with that, too, the strongest possible action by the Government. It would mean that when a price increase is contemplated, or announced, the Government would stop that increase pending an investigation and they would sanction the increase only if absolutely essential.

It might be that this would have an effect on all aspects of costs and there is no shying away from the implication of that. Every individual article will have to be examined on its merits. The rising cost in every article need not necessarily, I believe, be passed on to the consumer nor need it necessarily be due to a rise in wages. That is why, among other reasons, I seek this power. There are wide powers of investigation which can be used on items outside what would affect the cost of living index. Remarks made towards the close of the debate in relation to the hotel industry bring more clearly to mind a situation in the national economy which could require activity by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in regard to prices.

This industry, while not affecting the standard of living of most of our people, can certainly have an effect on our economy. If we are priced out of the tourist business because of that and without any effect on the cost of living of our people, we should investigate it. I have already had talks with the Minister for Transport and Power on this matter. The Bill would empower me to investigate hotel prices either in the shape of commodities or services or a combination of both. There are many other items which are worthy of investigation but they would not be called essential. I regard drink, with respect to Senator Ó Maoláin, as one of the non-essentials.

Mr. O'Quigley

That is a grave reflection on Senator Ó Maoláin. It——

Dr. Hillery

Such matters could be investigated but they would not be subject to such stringent standards as food, clothes and other items. I am not saying that drink would be allowed to go out of hands with regard to price. I have no intention of allowing that to happen.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

It has certainly a big effect on the cost of living.

Dr. Hillery

I am talking about essentials. I have no intention of letting the matter out of hands if I can help it. Senator Honan made a point about quality and quantity of goods sold regardless of their content. This is covered in the Bill. Section 22C, subsection (2), paragraph (e) gives power to the Minister to deal with the quality and quantity of goods sold. Again, I should like to thank the Seanad for the way they approached the Bill.

As I told the Dáil, I have no illusions whatever about the difficulty of controlling prices. If I seem reluctant to make positive statements about what I will do, my own experience and the experience of my predecessors have shown the difficulties of trying to control prices. The best I can do is to seek from the Oireachtas all the powers I may think will be necessary and use those powers to the fullest extent. I cannot now state what I will do. I can only state that I will do everything in my power to stabilise prices and investigate every increase to see whether it is necessary, and, if it is not necessary, I have no intention of allowing the price to increase.

Mr. O'Quigley

There are just one or two others matters generally on the section I should like to deal with. I am informed by shopkeepers in the country that it is not possible to buy sugar from the wholesalers as cheaply as it is to buy it retail from the supermarkets in Dublin. The same thing applies to a variety of other commodities like cornflakes. A country shopkeeper cannot buy these commodities wholesale as cheaply as they are sold retail in Dublin. There is obviously something wrong when that kind of situation arises.

There may be preferential treatment for the big supermarkets as against the small purchaser who buys very large quantities. It certainly creates unnecessary public discontent with the small trader when it is seen that a commodity can be purchased in Dublin pence, and often shillings, cheaper than it can be purchased in one's own home town. I wonder whether the Minister will be able under paragraph (c) of the Bill to require persons to furnish him information as to how that kind of thing is done. It seems to me that kind of thing may well form the subject matter of inquiry or it may be that there are unfair trading rules which the Fair Trade Commission may require to investigate. This is certainly something which unnecessarily generates very genuine criticism on the part of the consuming public; it is something which should be investigated.

With regard to the bodies which are to be established by the Minister under section 22B, I wonder how many bodies the Minister intends to establish or if he has any idea at the moment with regard to them? I know it is the Minister's intention to seek all the powers he can and it is his intention to use them only when absolutely necessary. Will those bodies be manned by civil servants or will they have representatives of the trade unions on them? To what extent will consumers and consumer interests be represented on these bodies? I certainly think that the more consumers that are on these bodies with a low level of civil service representatives and some representatives of other interests the more effective these bodies will be. The consumer members will be interested in setting the pace for effecting price stability. I hope the Minister will ensure that there will not be a spurious kind of consumer representation on these bodies but representatives of a fairly wide character who will have the interests of consumers at heart. As I say, the consumer representative will go in with his or her guns shooting.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

The point raised by Senator O'Quigley with regard to prices in supermarkets and prices at which commodities are supplied to wholesalers by manufacturers is a very good point. This is something that should be investigated. At the moment in the supermarkets a well-known brand of sauce is being advertised at 11d, and a very big wholesale concern are offering it at the moment, and the best price at which they can offer it is 13/10d a dozen. It appears as if the supermarkets have a very unfair advantage over the large wholesalers. That is one example. Another thing that strikes me—and many people have been inquiring about it recently —is the fact that Grade A bacon was advertised recently on television. Since when has Grade A bacon been on the market? I always understood, and most people understand, that it was for export.

Mr. O'Quigley

Certainly what we buy is not Grade A.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford): The last statement made by Senator FitzGerald raised a very big question indeed. We now come to the point: what do we mean by fair prices? No one really seems to have defined that. It is like what do we mean by a just wage. Most people think that a fair price is a price somewhat lower than the price they are paying for an article, and that a just wage is somewhat more than the wage they are getting. It is not a simple matter and I am not saying this to amuse the Seanad. It is a really serious problem. We can have a situation in which monopolies, supermarkets, co-operative societies, or any group of people in business, can buy large quantities and make their own prices. They may not have to resort to a bank for an overdraft, and they are in a position to sell a particular line at a price lower than the price at which it can be sold by an ordinary trader, for instance a small shopkeeper.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

Almost half the price.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford): There is a certain trick in that sort of trading. The people selling a particular article have a big turnover and they do not have to comply with any fair trading. It is really an advertising gimmick. They advertise, for example, a particular brand of sauce at a particular price, and the catch is that they hope to attract a large number of people by their advertisement in a shop window, on the television screen or in any other medium by quoting a few articles at a low price that cannot be regarded as fair because it is unfair to other people in the trade. They get in as many people as they can and sell the advertised articles at a low price, and sell horse nails at a very great profit indeed. This is a very serious matter. I mention horse nails because they are not usually sold in a grocer's shop. This type of trading is unfair to the consuming public because they are tricked into coming into a particular business premises to buy articles they do not really want and then they buy other articles they do want at a higher price than they would pay elsewhere. This is a most unfair practice because it channelises the trade into narrow circles. I cannot see how an ordinary small shopkeeper in the country, city or town, or at a crossroads, can compete with that sort of trading. The result will be that the small shop-keener who gives a service to society will disappear. When that happens fairs and markets will collapse. This matter is deserving of the attention of the Minister.

There is nothing new in this. When I was young I heard of a trader who dealt with the farming community. He had a habit of selling copper sulphate or bluestone—the material used for spraying potatoes—at a price far below the price at which it could be sold by any other trader. Some people think the lowest possible price is the fair price. I dispute that. At any rate, he sold the bluestone at the lowest possible price and he made his profit on paint, nails, door hinges and other commodities which he sold. That is unfair trading.

Since this matter was raised I thought I should express a view on it because in the long run a fair price is a price that is fair to the seller and the purchaser. It should be our aim in a price structure to have a price which is fair to the seller and the purchaser. No one should be exploited. People in trade are entitled to a legitimate profit, but not an exorbitant profit. I hope this Bill will go some way towards achieving a fair price for the seller and the purchaser. We must educate people's minds on this question of buying articles because they are quoted at a fictitious price. There is another point which I do not think was mentioned yet on the question of packaging. It is easy enough for a big concern to offer butter at 3/9d a lb. In their form of advertising they do not say how much butter.

Mr. Murphy

The Senator said a lb.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford): People assume it is a lb. Let us not forget that, unfortunately, we have not got the metric system and hence many people know or think they know that there are 14 ozs in a lb and 16 lbs in a stone. I say that deliberately because people get confused. An article which is advertised may only contain 14 ozs but the people buying it may think it is a lb. A watch should be kept on that matter also.

Dónall Ó Conalláin

Apropos the point being discussed, I am afraid there is some evidence that there is a conspiracy in certain cases between manufacturers and the larger traders with regard to the presentation of goods. The packaging and the notation on the packages would seem to indicate that there is a certain standard and quality of goods, but on examination it has been found that is not so. It has been brought to my notice that there is a very important cake manufacturing concern in the country who have been selling various brands of cake. They sell madeira cake the standard price of which is 2/6 and the supermarkets come along and advertise what seems to be the same cake at 1/10. The package is the same and as far as the gullible housewife is concerned she thinks she is getting a great bargain and has possibly paid 4d or 5d bus fare to get this bargain. But, it has been found that neither in weight nor in content is the cake the same. If that is the situation it seems to me that there is conspiracy between the manufacturer and this large retailer. Certainly it is not fair trade and it is not in the best interests of the small dealer. Surely that is something which should be investigated and, to say the least of it, it is sharp practice. I wonder has the Minister any responsibility under this Bill for seeing that such conspiracy between manufacturers and their larger customers does not exist to the detriment of the smaller trader and the consumer.

Dr. Hillery

All the points mentioned are covered in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration, and passed.