asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether his attention has been called to statements concerning the withholding of batch bread subsidy from Messrs. Fitzsimons and Sons, Ceanannus Mór County Meath; and if he will state the reasons for the action taken by him in this matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Withholding of Batch Bread Subsidy.
I have seen certain statements published in the Press in reference to claims for batch bread subsidy made by Mr. James C. Fitzsimons, proprietor of the firm of Peter Fitzsimons & Sons, Kells.
The non-payment of the subsidy to this firm is in accordance with the general policy of withholding subsidy from bakers who contravene Acts or Orders governing the production and sale of flour, bread or confectionery. Due publicity has been given to the fact that such contravention involves withholding of subsidy, and it is well-known to all firms in the trade. Mr. Fitzsimons was convicted at Kells District Court on the 10th July, 1945, of overcharging for batch bread sold by wholesale during several months of the year 1944; investigations showed that this overcharging for batch bread extended back to September, 1942. The investigations also showed that Mr. Fitzsimons had over-charged for fancy bread as far back as July, 1942.
The subsidy on batch bread is paid to enable bakers to sell their products at the fixed price, while making a reasonable margin of profit. There is no justification for paying it to bakers who endeavour to increase their profits by overcharging. I consider that I would not be warranted in paying subsidy from public funds to Mr. Fitzsimons in respect of subsidy periods during which he overcharged for bread. I have, therefore, decided that his claims in respect of all two-monthly subsidy periods from the 1st June, 1942, to the 30th September, 1944, must be disallowed.
In the statement mentioned in the Question, reference is made to three local firms and it is suggested that there has been discrimination against the firm of Fitzsimons and Sons. In addition to the case of Fitzsimons and Sons, proceedings were instituted against two other firms in the same area. In one case, conviction was secured and the payment of subsidy for the relevant period was withheld. In the second case, the Attorney-General advised that proceedings were unlikely to succeed: the summonses were withdrawn in this case and successful proceedings were instituted instead against one of the firm's employees who, it appeared, over-charged for bread against the express instructions of his employers. In this case, subsidy was not withheld as it was clear that the firm had not benefited by the overcharging.