The Department of Supplies is the one Department to-day that has to defend itself against attacks from all sides and from all sections. The Minister of that Department has to carry on his shoulders a great burden of responsibility, and in addition he has to deal with the dissatisfaction aroused by the so-called misdeeds of his Department. Except from the last speaker, we have heard nothing but complaints about the Department. We have heard no expression of gratitude for the many gigantic tasks they have accomplished for the well-being of the community in general. I admit that, while I see 99 per cent. of good from the activities of the Department, I am prepared to ventilate the 1 per cent. with which I disagree, but we should not forget that this little island of ours is in the middle of a world of turmoil, and that the greatest difficulties confront those responsible for trying to keep things on an even keel. If we think that mistakes are being made, or that unnecessary hardships are being imposed, we should put forward the case as we see it, and be prepared to listen to the other side of the story. If we cannot achieve what we believe is right, at least let us understand that what is being done by the Department is being done with the object of achieving the general well-being of the community. Every day, indeed almost in every hour of every day, one hears various reasons put forward for certain activities of the Department of Supplies. People do not seem to realise that the desire of the Department is to achieve the well-being of the community. As far as the public is concerned, we should be grateful for the position we are in to-day. If we compare the conditions here with those obtaining in any other country in the world, we will be driven to the conclusion that this country is the best place in the world at the present moment. Therefore, as I said, the people ought to be grateful for that situation.
I want to say to the Minister, and to his Department through him, that I find a general willingness on the part of the public to co-operate with the Department on all occasions. From certain reactions, one imagines that there is a suspicion in the minds of the officials of the Department that some sections of the public are not willing to co-operate. It is true that there are numbers of individuals who will not co-operate, so long as they can help it, but we are not concerned with those people. The cross-section of the public is similar to the cross-section, say, of the Civil Service as a whole, or to the cross-section of the officials of the Department of Supplies. When we reduce it down to the ordinary things of life, we are a nation of human beings and some human beings happen to be officials and very few officials happen to be Ministers. I suppose, the fewer there are of certain types of officials, the more abuse they have to carry and the more responsibility they have to bear. When it is all over, I suppose we will be able to decide and be wise after the event, as to whether we did right or wrong and whether we escaped well or were hurt very badly.
We notice that—very occasionally, fortunately—there is a bad civil servant, who has to appear in court for some misdemeanour; but that does not warrant the public believing that the public service, as a whole, is anything like that individual. On the other hand, the Department of Supplies, in dealing with traders—and, particularly, with retail grocers— should realise that these people have a very heavy burden to carry and, if there are some offenders amongst them, that gives no cause to assume that every retail shopkeeper wishes to enrich himself at the expense of the community.
Before going further, I would like to mention a matter which has been brought very strongly to my notice. The Department of Supplies, apparently, differentiates in commodities when they come to decide the quotas to be allocated. In some cases, they act on the family basis and give quotas per head of a family. The Department should reconsider the method by which they allocate quotas for turf. At present, each householder is allowed a certain amount of turf per month, which cannot be purchased except in that month. Whether he has a large family or a small family, the same amount of turf is delivered to each householder. I happen to know that, in the City of Dublin, there are houses which are divided into sections, regarded as self-contained flats—in some cases consisting only of a room or two rooms. You will find ten people living in such a building, each entitled to the same quantity of turf that a neighbour would have as head of a family of five or six children and domestic servants. In cases of that kind, the Department of Supplies should loosen up a bit and have regard to what is required per head of a family.
In regard to the retail grocers, I am one of those members of this House who happen to be on a self-formed committee to examine what appear to be certain grievances deserving of examination. I happen to be chairman of that committee. We decided that, in our approach to that matter, we would need, first of all, an assurance from the representatives of the trade that they were not asking us to stand over anything which was hostile to the principles laid down by this Government with regard to the general well-being of the community. We have been assured that they are not concerned on behalf of bad traders or from the point of veiw of black marketeers or those who are deliberately charging high prices for goods that are scarce. We satisfied ourselves that these were decent, reputable citizens, also members of the public who, while they sell one thing, have to buy another, and who are equally concerned that the cost of living should not be pushed up unduly. We are satisfied that they had a genuine case, and we hope that the Minister will, in due course— after he has got through the work in which the piloting of this Estimate involves him—be constrained to receive a deputation, representing the traders, Senators and Deputies concerned. An across-table discussion on this matter would enable him to see how far the point of view of the traders may be understood, and how far the traders might withdraw from a certain attitude, on seeing the difficulties the Minister may have in trying to meet the situation.
We decided that we would try to be in general agreement amongst ourselves to remove from our discussions any question of politics and to try to decide only whether these people had a case or not. One of the simple things these men wonder about is why the Department of Supplies fixes Friday as the ending of the week, when they themselves say that Saturday should end the week and Monday begin it, for the purpose of records. They say it should be easier for the Department to agree to Monday as the beginning of the week than for all these thousands of traders to do so and alter their tradition, in order to meet the Department's request that it begin on Saturday. The Department should understand, also, that even Deputies and very well-informed people find it hard to understand all the Orders and regulations which are made from day to day—and which have to be made— and that the general public and the assistants in shops will need a very much improved standard of intelligence if they are to understand and know, from day-to-day, all the requirements of the Orders which are published so suddenly.
The Department should also consider the question of profit making and the reasonable margin of profit for traders, apart from its relation to the cost of living. If traders are forced to deal in commodities at prices which do not give them a reasonable margin of profit—enough to keep them solvent —it will have a bad effect. We must not forget that many of our citizens are working in a neighbouring country and that, when they come home for holidays, they have plenty of money to spend on goods which would be much dearer outside. On coming home, they are able to pay a price which the people at home, because of the wages control, could not afford. The Minister is very anxious to see that the goods available for the people of this country should be purchasable by them but, if he is too rigid and unreasonable, he himself is helping to create a trade in smuggling.
I cannot understand why cigarettes should be so scarce in Dublin. I had to go back to a pipe, as it was impossible to get cigarettes, and, if it is hard for me, other people must be much worse off. I am inclined to believe, now that the price of cigarettes in a neighbouring country and in the Northern Counties has gone up, that there will develop a trade in taking traders supplies and getting the extra 6d. per packet for them across the Border. If traders are expected to play fair with the public, the Government should see that there is fair play for them as well.
In regard to price fixing, I understand that the Department examines books and accounts. They must be aware that very many small retail shops never keep books, as do big companies which study their percentage profits. It is, therefore, very difficult to get a proper costing as to what will pay in one area as distinct from another, in relation to a certain class of trade.
It should be borne in mind that the trader to-day has a much smaller range of goods from which to make his general profits. We know that there is a scarcity of practically all commodities and that there are certain commodities which are unprocurable. I remember distinctly that many shops before the war would sell one particular line at a loss in order to attract customers for another line of goods which they had in considerable quantity and on which they could make a fairly good profit. One firm made butter their leading line, another firm eggs, and so on. To-day most commodities are controlled and the remaining goods in free trade are very few and far between and very scarce indeed. I hope the Minister will indicate that he is ready to believe that traders are prepared to co-operate with his Department and that he recognises that every trade and every section of the community which is organised can be helpful both to themselves and to his Department. I hope he will receive a deputation and in that way recognise the spokesmen of these institutions. I hope he will have a repetition of what happened only recently when his Department sent for certain representatives whom they had seen previously to discuss the question of potatoes. They all came away happy and satisfied. The Department felt that they had got a fair statement from the representatives of the trade, and the traders were satisfied that they got fair treatment from the Department. Why cannot that spirit be applied and extended in connection with most of the matters which might be termed disputes or grievances?
I do not propose to deal in detail with what was discussed in committee by us because I am hoping that the Minister will give us an opportunity of dealing with it in a reasonable way. Two names, however, have been mentioned in connection with cases which were brought to our notice. We do not know all the facts; we know only what we have been told and I am sure that the Minister also does not know all the facts. I am sure if he did, in one particular case in any event, he would be very reluctant to permit a procedure of the nature adopted in that particular case. The name of Stanley of Ballybrack was mentioned. I happen to know the firm of Stanley, as I lived in that neighbourhood for five years. I know the firm to be a very decent firm. One could not call them profiteers in any sense of the word. I know their offence appears on paper to be a simple one. As a matter of fact if that offence had been detected some months after the case had been taken to court the situation might have been quite different because since that particular time the Department has discovered that it must allow for wastage in handling tea. In the case of this particular firm the Department did not allow for the four lbs. wastage per 100 lbs. which they now allow in the handling of tea. I do not want to refer to the points that traders regard as essential and as a condition of their deputation being received. I think the Minister will understand now that it is only a request that they be heard and that they want to put before the Minister or whatever appropriate official he decides to hear them—I would prefer that he should hear them himself—how they propose to meet the situation.
There is a suggestion whether it be true or not—and there is no means of disproving it—that not all traders are treated alike. We read of traders who are brought before courts and convicted and then we hear that a certain number of licences have been revoked, while others have been notified that their licences will be revoked. We are led to believe that in some cases such drastic punishment is not applied. I want to tell the Minister that in this connection the public have a grievance which has to be considered.
Take an area like Ballybrack. I do not know how many grocers there are there. There may be three or four, but, at any rate, there are very few. They supply a very large number of people. If every time a trader is convicted of an offence, irrespective of whether the offence is a bad one, a trivial one, or one that is due to a genuine mistake, and that conviction is followed by a revocation of the licence, you will ultimately reach a stage in which a village or town will be deprived of all its suppliers of tea or sugar because the traders will all have lost their licences. Then the public will have to go to the nearest adjoining town or village to get their supplies.
I want to point out to the Minister on the other hand that the withdrawal of a licence is a very serious thing for a trader. I agree that the public must be protected against exploitation, and if it is a bad case, the trader deserves to be put out of business permanently, because that is what revocation of a licence means. In one case cited here a trader had 600 persons registered for tea and sugar. By a stroke of the pen, following conviction for a certain offence, he lost 600 customers, not only for tea and sugar, but for other commodities as well, because when people had to go elsewhere for their tea and sugar they bought other requirements there also. Such a man might as well close up his shop if he has no other business.
This is a point I want to put to the Minister: To whom is he going to transfer all these licences? Already people who are very national in their outlook object to having to go to what they call cross-Channel houses to buy their tea and sugar. I am informed that some of these revoked licences have been transferred to houses which are regarded as being cross-Channel houses.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,