It may, perhaps, enable Deputies to understand more easily the scope and purpose of this measure if I preface my remarks on it by giving a brief history of prices investigation in this State. From the very beginning of the State there have been, from time to time, in fact, almost continuously, complaints of unduly high prices being charged for commodities of common consumption. There have been allegations of profiteering by traders and others and demands for investigation and control. I think it is necessary to emphasise that point, in order that Deputies may approach the consideration of this measure in the proper atmosphere. Legislation to provide for the control of prices is not made necessary by any purely temporary circumstance, or any particular policy in operation at any one time, and it would be a mistake for the House, and probably detrimental to the production of the best type of legislation, if Deputies were to consider this Bill as something occasioned by existing circumstances, or to deal with conditions which may arise in the near future. Complaints about undue prices have been in existence at all times, and the demand for legislation to establish machinery to control prices has existed from the first year in which this State came into existence. As far back as October, 1922, a Commission on Prices was set up by resolution of the Dáil. To quote the terms of that resolution the commission was "to inquire into and report on prices costs or profits at all or any of the stages in the production distribution or sale of the commodities," specified in the official report on the Cost of Living and on alcoholic and other beverages. In proposing the motion to establish that commission the Minister for Industry and Commerce of that day, Mr. Joseph McGrath, referred to the widespread reports which were in circulation concerning profiteering. To quote his words as they appear in volume I, column 833, of the Dáil Debates, he said: "Profiteering, to my mind, is going on to a very large extent."
A commission was established by the Dáil as a result of that motion, but it had no statutory powers to collect information in cases in which it was not voluntarily given, and, in consequence, the commission did very little useful work, although an elaborate arrangement of local committees was established in all important centres in the country. The report of the commission, which is available to Deputies in the Library of the Dáil, is of interest to-day only in so far as it bears on observations that have since been repeated by every tribunal or body set up to investigate prices: "We regret to have to report that the consuming public, as distinct from the manufacturers and traders, have shown little interest in the activities of the commission, and have rendered very little help, notwithstanding repeated invitations." They pointed out that the attitude of the public was all the more regrettable because its investigations had been undertaken because of repeated public complaints as to prices. The observations of the committee which I have quoted, and similar observations contained in the reports of subsequent tribunals of inquiry into prices, should be borne in mind by Deputies when considering the details of this measure, because our experience has made it clear that it is idle and futile to rely on active public co-operation to ensure the effectiveness of any system of prices control. In 1923, following the publication of the report of the commission to which I have referred, the Government then in office determined to introduce legislation for the permanent control of prices. It even got so far in the matter as to be able to announce on April 2nd, 1924, that a Bill for that purpose would be introduced in about a fortnight from that date. The Bill never appeared however, but sometime later, as reported in volume 7, column 182 of the Dáil Debates, Deputy Cosgrave, who was then President, in explaining the non-appearance of the measure in relation to the Minister for Industry and Commerce said:—
"That is not to say that he is not impressed by the gravity of the case and the necessity for the Bill and for putting up a measure which will meet the case."
No measure of any kind was, however, enacted, although public complaints concerning prices continued, and the subject-matter of these complaints was frequently debated in the House. As a result of complaints and pressure applied in the Dáil, Deputy Cosgrave's Government decided to act again by way of the establishment of a commission of inquiry, and in February, 1926, the Tribunal on Prices was set up "to inquire into the retail price of articles of general consumption as a definite matter of urgent public importance," to quote the terms of the Dáil resolution. That tribunal reported in October, 1927. Its report revealed that unduly high prices were being charged for many articles of food in different parts of the country. On page two of their report the Prices Tribunal state: "The outstanding impression left on our minds as a result of this inquiry is the need for continuous investigation and supervision." In the report they elaborated proposals for the establishment of a permanent prices board. No action was taken upon their report by the Government then in office, although they were repeatedly pressed to do so in the Dáil, and although complaints about prices continued to exist. It was not until the change of Government in 1932 that it fell to my lot to prepare and to introduce here the present Control of Prices Act. When introducing that Act I explained that the Government accepted the view that permanent machinery for the investigation of prices was required, that citizens were entitled to have a means whereby their legitimate complaints might be investigated and, if possible, remedied; and that it was, in any event, an essential measure, particularly in this country, at a time when industrial development was being promoted by restrictions of imports leading to a reduction of competition. I pointed out, however, the essential difference between the investigation and the publication of reports on prices and the actual enforcement of prices control.
I expressed the hope, which has not, in the event, been fully realised, that the Prices Commission would be able to achieve its purpose without actual resort to price fixation, although power to fix maximum prices was taken, to be used in the last resort when persuasion and publicity had failed. That Bill received a very mixed reception from the Dáil but it was not opposed. In the Seanad, however, many amendments were inserted which lessened its effectiveness in many respects, particularly in regard to the provisions dealing with the investigation of individual complaints by members of the public. It became law, however, and since then the Prices Commission has operated. I repeat that I have given that brief history of price-control legislation for the purpose of making clear that the need for it has existed and has been recognised to exist at all times by members of the public and by those charged with the responsibility of ensuring that public grievances in that regard were remedied. I do not know the considerations which persuaded the previous Government to drop their declared intention to introduce such a permanent measure. Possibly, the difficulty of framing the measure— a difficulty of which I am very well aware—had something to do with it. Most Deputies will, however, recognise that it is much better to establish some permanent body, charged with statutory functions and given the necessary powers to investigate prices and to require information on prices to be supplied to them, than that we should have periodic investigations by ad hoc committees or tribunals set up for the purpose of publishing reports only and without power to ensure that effective action is taken.
The Prices Commission which has operated since 1932 has completed investigations into the prices charged for a number of commodities. It may, perhaps, be of interest to Deputies to give the list of commodities the prices of which have been investigated by the commission and to make some reference to the circumstances under which the investigations were considered necessary.
The first investigation related to wheaten flour. The next investigation related to wheaten meal and there were, then, investigations into the prices of bread, mineral hydrocarbon heavy oil, bodies used for omnibuses and goods vehicles, fresh fish and filleted fish—these two investigations were taken together—all materials and appliances used in the building of houses, furniture, mattresses and bolsters. A further investigation into the price of batch bread was undertaken last year and the commission is at present engaged in investigating the price of bacon. As Deputies are aware, the existing law gives the Prices Commission power to investigate the price charged for a scheduled commodity when requested to do so by the Minister for Industry and Commerce or by any other interested person. Two of the investigations to which I have referred—fresh fish and filleted fish—were undertaken at the request of a local authority in Dublin. All the other investigations were undertaken by the commission at my request. The scheduled commodities are set out in the Act and are—(1) any commodity used as food or drink by a man other than drugs or water; (2) any commodity used as clothing, material for clothing or fuel. Power was given to the Executive Council to add to the schedule any commodity of common use. That power was exercised to give the commission power to undertake an investigation into the price of furniture.
Under the existing Act, the commission may endeavour to check profiteering, if they are satisfied that profiteering is taking place, by giving the public notice of prices which it considers reasonable and requiring the prices to be reduced to those figures within a specified time. If that procedure fails, the commission can report the failure to the Minister for Industry and Commerce who can—in theory at least—fix a maximum retail or wholesale price. On the one occasion on which the Prices Commission tried to secure a reduction in existing prices by means of the procedure under the Act—that is, in the case of bread— the persons concerned refused to comply with the request. When the Prices Commission published their notice stating what they considered was a reasonable price and requesting the persons concerned to reduce their price to that figure, there was noncompliance with that request and a report was made to me. In consequence of that report, I decided to exercise the powers given under the Act for the purpose of fixing a maximum price. I found however, that the framing of the Act was defective in many respects. As Deputies will remember, before that power could be secured, fresh legislation dealing with bread only had to be enacted. The maximum price for bread which is now operating is fixed under that special Act dealing with bread prices and not under the Act of 1932.
The Act of 1932 also provided that complaints from individuals should be made to the authority set up by the Act—the Controller of Prices—who was given power to arrange for the investigation of such complaints by means of inspectors and, if he found that they were substantiated, either to refer the matter to the Prices Commission so that a full price investigation should be undertaken or, after compliance with the provisions of the Act, which are very elaborate and formal, proceed to fix a legal price by making a price certificate. We have found, in practice, that the existing Act is defective in many ways. Perhaps it will explain the reason for this measure and the nature of its various provisions if I indicate the main difficulties which arose in the operation of the 1932 Act. I have mentioned some of them already but the case of bread is the outstanding one. The commission found, when requested to investigate the price charged for that commodity, that no useful work could be done by them if they confined their activities to the narrow field covered by the requisition sent to them. An investigation into the price of bread is of little value unless, at the same time, an examination can be made of the price of flour and the various ingredients of bread. I have mentioned bread as an example but Deputies will understand that the same thing is true of practically any other commodity.
In the Bill, therefore, we are giving the commission power when they receive a requisition, or themselves decide, and give notice of their intention, to investigate the price of a particular commodity, to extend the scope of their inquiry at any time they think it necessary to do so in order to enable them to arrive at useful results.
The Prices Commission occasionally found it necessary, particularly in connection with the investigation of the prices of housing materials, to submit an interim report and to make recommendations therein with a view to immediate action being taken in relation to the prices of some commodities.