Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll gave notice that, on the motion for the Adjournment, she would raise the subject matter of question No. 3 on to-day's Order Paper.
Adjournment Debate—Increase in Coal Prices.
My reasons for raising this question on the adjournment are threefold. First of all, I had this question in last Friday at about 3.15 p.m., shortly after the coal inquiry ended. It reads:—
"To ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce if, in view of the inadequacy of the evidence submitted by the Dublin coal importers in support of their claim for an increase of £2 8s. 6d. a ton, he will not sanction any increase until the claim has been re-examined in public."
That question should, in the normal course of events, have been on the Order Paper yesterday. The Minister asked me to postpone it until Thursday. I do not think I could be wrong in implying or inferring from that request that there was a possibility that no action would be taken in the matter of an increase until my question was put to the House. Contrary to that, the price of coal was increased yesterday by 30/- a ton.
My second reason for raising this question on the Adjournment is that the application by the Dublin coal merchants was completely dishonest; my third reason is that the evidence submitted in support of their claim was totally inadequate.
When the inquiry adjourned on Friday, there was certain information which myself and other consumers' organisations had tried to elicit from the applicants through the Prices Advisory Body. Some of that information was, in my opinion, very relevant, particularly the amount of coal the merchants had in stock at the old price. In other words, we wanted the merchants to tell us what stocks they held prior to the 1st June.
It was extraordinary that those people who were making the application were not in a position to give us the information that morning though they did say they would have it that afternoon. In my opinion, this was a very important question. If we elicited the information that the coal held at the old price would still be sold at the old price, it would have some effect towards modifying the increased price when it became operative.
On the adjournment of the inquiry, I pressed for the information from the chairman of the Prices Advisory Body. I am repeating this because it happened in public at the inquiry. The chairman asked me whether, if the merchants sent him that information and he passed it on to me, I would be satisfied. I said there was no need to satisfy me because the fact of the matter was that he had to satisfy the public, that it was a public inquiry and that he could get the information. He then told me I could publish it, to which I said it was not my function. I left the inquiry under the impression that no recommendation would be made by this body to the Minister until the relevant information outstanding had been supplied to the body and, in turn, to us as consumers' organisations.
As well as the question of stocks of coal, we were anxious to find out what percentage of cheaper coals were imported by the coal merchants. The inquiry revealed that, while the maximum increase by the British Coal Board was 27/- a ton, there were other increases of 24/6 a ton. The merchants contended that they imported some of that coal at the lower price and sold it to coal merchants. The Waterford merchants admitted they bought on a 50-50 basis, that is, 50 per cent. dear coal and 50 per cent. cheap coal. The Dublin merchants could not tell what percentage of the cheaper and of the dearer coals they bought. They maintained there were various grades on sale in Dublin in spite of the fact that the Housewives' Association and the Lower Prices Council maintain that when a domestic consumer purchased coal from the merchant there was only one coal, that is, top price coal; quality does not matter.
It was further advanced at this inquiry by members of the Prices Advisory Body that the coal upon which merchants were basing their claim—best Yorkshire coal—was not available from some of the merchants. I believe that a member of the body went to some merchants and asked for best Yorkshire coal and was told that they never heard of it.
I thought it was the intention of this inquiry to satisfy the public that only when an increase in price was unavoidable would the increase be imposed. The Friday inquiry proved beyond doubt that the Dublin coal merchants' application was dishonest. The subsequent results of the inquiry, that is, the recommendation to the Minister, and his acceptance of it, of an increase of 30/- per ton for the Dublin area, which is 3/- above the maximum price passed on by the British Coal Board is, in my opinion, untenable. My purpose now is to ask the Minister to reconsider this application, to have it re-examined and, if it is found necessary, though I do not believe it will, for the 27/- to be imposed on the price of coal coming into this country, that all sections will participate in it and bear a part of it.
The Minister was naïve enough to say, in his Press statement, that he had accepted the assurance of the coal merchants that none of the old coal would be sold at the new price. How many of the Minister's inspectors went this morning to the Dublin coal merchants to see what the price of coal was and how many succeeded in getting it at the old price of £9 3s. 6d. a ton? Several members of the public approached me, particularly after 9 o'clock, and told me that they could only get coal at £10 13s. 6d. a ton.
I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter carefully. If the public is to continue to have confidence in this Prices Advisory Body, which is the only means they have of voicing their grievances and of being protected from exploitation, if the Minister wants that confidence to continue, he should insist on a standstill Order in relation to this increased price and have an inquiry opened immediately. The only people to provide information are the coal merchants. The Housewives' Association and the Lower Prices Council are ready and have been ready since last week.
The coal merchants, either by malice aforethought or because they were so sure that there was no need to give detailed costings, did not bother to have for the inquiry the very important information, namely, the types, the amount and the proportions of the different priced coal they had in stock.
The proposal of the Dublin merchants to sell coal on a bag basis of 14/6 a bag was, in my opinion, another dishonest application. I do not think it would be fair to the bellmen in Dublin, who supply the bulk of the poorer classes with coal, to put them in competition with their own suppliers. They would have to sell at a higher margin. When I asked the coal merchants at the Prices Advisory Body what quantity of coal was sold ex-ship and what would the new price be on the bag basis, I could not get the information.
If the Minister is sincere—and I believe he is—in protecting the consumer against any unavoidable increases, he must ensure that these increases are proved necessary—but only after detailed investigation, not like what we had last Friday. These increases should be shared by the importers, distributors and, in part, by the consumers. We must stop this protection and subsidising of profits at the expense of the consumer.
I appeal to the Minister to check my statement about the price of coal this morning at nine o'clock and to find out if coal was available at the old price and, in view of my submissions, to have the inquiry reopened in the public interest.
Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll gave three reasons for raising this matter on the Adjournment. I do not propose to deal with one of these reasons. She says that the application of the coal merchants was dishonest. This is a matter between Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll and the coal merchants. In so far as Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll was prepared at one stage to recommend that the coal merchants should get an increase of 27/- a ton, at least it looks as if she was travelling for some time, at all events, in that company which she now describes as dishonest.
I am afraid the Minister will have to explain that.
I will explain it all. On the question of the postponement of the question, the decision in this matter was taken by me on Monday. Because another engagement kept me out of the House, I asked that the few questions I had yesterday at Question Time should be brought over to to-day and I said that I would take them to-day. My desire in that respect was to answer the questions myself and all of my questions of yesterday were transferred to to-day. There was no special request to Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll to postpone this particular question and all six or seven questions were postponed until to-day, but Mrs. O'Carroll gives the impression that there was some occult influence at work——
A very natural impression in view of the Minister's answer.
I know the Deputy was disappointed about the publicity associated with yesterday's announcement, but the fact of the matter is that the decision was taken on Monday and this question was not postponed to enable the information to get out first and there was no question of postponing the question until the announcement was made.
The third question was that of inadequate information. Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll is quite clearly going on the line this evening that this House is competent to try the application of the coal merchants for an increase in price. The House, of course, is not competent to try that application again. If the Deputy does not want the case tried again, apparently she regards this House as a court of appeal against the decision of the Prices Advisory Body.
Why not?
I do not presume to be able to fathom Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll's reasoning on this matter. The Prices Advisory Body was set up consisting of two representatives who might be said to represent manufacturing interests. The other two members of the board are two trade union officials, in whom apparently, Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll has so little faith. Another person that I put on specially is a special income-tax investigator and the chairman of the tribunal is a Supreme Court judge. That tribunal is not balanced in favour of the coal merchants and, if there is any tilt at all, it is the other way.
It increased the price of coal, did it not?
That tribunal is balanced if anything in favour of the consumers.
It is not.
And I think it is right that it should be balanced in favour of the consumer. I do not think the tribunal should be neutral in the matter of prices. I think its tendency should be to keep prices back and to keep them down and, if there is any doubt, the consumer ought to get the benefit of that doubt. That was the body which dealt with the application and it is not the first time it has dealt with that application. During the past 12 months, in addition to holding three separate inquiries, the Advisory Body devoted a considerable amount of its time to the examination of costings, statements and audited financial accounts of individual coal merchants before the holding of the public inquiry on the 8th June. They have had discussions and correspondence with the Dublin Coal Trade Association and with individual coal merchants in relation to their own accounts and the Prices Advisory Body have informed me that they were satisfied that they got all the information they wanted. That means that the two trade union officials there were apparently satisfied that they got all the information they wanted.
One of them was absent from the inquiry.
What point does the Deputy make of that?
The Minister said two of them were satisfied.
The trade union representatives were satisfied, that section of the board was apparently satisfied, that they got all the information they wanted and that the case for the increase was thoroughly and adequately examined. That is what the tribunal——
Unanimously?
——has informed me— that they got all the information they wanted. It was on the basis of that information that they came to the decision which they did reach. I think nobody has challenged the fact that the British are charging an extra 27/- per ton for coal and in fact the memorandum submitted to the Prices Body by the Lower Prices Council travelled so far as to pretty well underwrite an increase of 27.
Read the last paragraph.
Order!
Read the last paragraph.
"While we concede that the increase per ton of 27/- as imposed by the British Coal Board is outside the control of our importers and distributors, we condemn the proposal to increase the price in excess of that amount."
Go on, now, read the last paragraph.
I suggest the Deputy should allow the Minister to give the reasons that operated in reaching this decision.
I will make my own case. So there you have a certificate that 27/- a ton is an understandable increase.
In fairness, that is misrepresentation by the Minister, by taking the thing out of its context.
Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll got an opportunity of making her case. I assume she wants to know what operated in the Minister's mind to influence him to make the decision he has made, and I think he should get an opportunity to explain that.
Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll wants to wound everybody but nobody is entitled to say anything but the most delicate things to the Deputy.
That is unfair and untrue.
Let me go on to the Trade Union Congress memorandum. Paragraph 16 of the memorandum of the Trade Union Congress contains this:
"As the present price of £9 3s. 6d. for coal in Dublin has been approved by the Prices Advisory Body, we suggest that only such increases in cost as have taken place since this price was fixed should be considered by the body as warranting any adjustment in the retail price."
Read paragraph 17.
I am going to make my own case in my own way. There is a statement that only such increases in cost as have taken place since the price was fixed previously should be considered. Twenty-seven shillings was the increase in the cost of coal, but there are other increases also. In the price of every ton of coal there is a charge for short weight, that is loss of weight in transit. The coal is weighed at the pit head; it is weighed on to the wagons and the wagons are sent over the railway and they are open wagons. They finally arrive at the quayside. They are taken off the quayside by grabs and put into ships in the harbour. These ships are moving slightly in the tide and the wagons are tilted on to the ships.
Anybody who has seen coal on the quayside has seen coal fall into the sea or into the river when the coal is being loaded or unloaded from the ship. That loss in weight counts against the importers. Then it has to be unloaded at the quayside again at the port of importation and it has to be taken from there to the coal merchants' yard. Those who have been in the coal trade all their lives know this and it is well known to sailors and to people associated in a practical way with the coal trade that a loss of weight in this way is something that is inevitable in the trade, with the result that in making up the price of coal, the importer is charged the pit-head price and he pays for the pit-head weight when it is imported, and in the whole reckoning of coal prices that loss in weight in transit is an element which makes up a charge that has to be considered in the fixation of prices.
Similarly, when dealing with good quality coal, which is soft coal, the tendency for a portion of the coal to become slack is increased, in accordance with the quality of the coal. If it is good quality soft coal, there is a greater tendency to slack than in the case of hard coal, and the more you handle that type of coal the greater will be the volume of slack in the coal. Slack, therefore, has always been an element in the fixation of the price of coal.
They give it away for nothing.
Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll should try to restrain her petulance and should not be annoyed because I give the facts.
I object to the word "petulance".
These are two items. It is quite easy for any Deputy to see that, if coal prices go up, the value of the slack is correspondingly increased in price. These are two elements to be allowed for when the merchant is paying a greater price for his coal. Transport had increased also by reason of the increased price of petrol and the importers, I understand, made the case that the city rates had increased. They also made the case that one very big item which pressed on them was the fact that additional moneys are required for the servicing of capital. Coal merchants have got to pay for their coal to the British National Coal Board within seven days and if they have to pay a higher rate, represented by 27/- a ton more than they previously paid, they have the case that the servicing of that additional capital should be an element which the Prices Advisory Body should take into consideration.
Without attempting to say that the Prices Advisory Body was right and that this was a correct price to fix, the plain facts are that the price of coal has been increased by 27/- a ton in England and that, in addition, the Prices Advisory Body allowed an additional 3/- per ton, that is 30/- per ton, instead of the 48/6 which the coal merchants sought. Presumably the Prices Advisory Body took into consideration such items as slackage, loss of weight in transport, increased transport charges, increased city rates and the servicing of additional capital. I presume that is the reason why the price was fixed at 30/-.
I thought the Minister knew.
It is 18/6 per ton less than the coal merchants sought, and less than they might have charged had there been no Prices Advisory Body functioning in the public interest. On what happened between Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll and the Prices Advisory Body I am not qualified to express an opinion because I was not there. I deal only in facts. I understand, however, that a point was made before the Prices Advisory Body that there was second-grade coal in stock in some of the merchants' yards. Of course, any amateur can see coal in a merchant's yard and assume that it is all household coal. Quite a number of the merchants will have industrial coal, which is not the type of coal which was the subject of the Prices Advisory Body's examination.
It was estimated, however, that the amount of second-grade coal in stock was approximately 900 tons. That was the information offered by the coal merchants and the officers of the Prices Branch of my Department are now checking the quantity of all household coal which was in stock at the time the increase was sought and at the time the Prices Advisory Body made its recommendation. As a matter of fact, I do not think it has much bearing on the whole situation, if the total amount in stock was 900 tons or even twice that much. The total amount of domestic coal used in Dublin in a year is 500,000 tons. If you tried to get the fraction of that which 900 tons would represent I feel sure it would be so microscopic as not to make any serious difference in price fixation.
This time last year one merchant had 5,000 tons in stock.
Does the Deputy suggest the Prices Advisory Body should go down and chivvy everybody to find out the few tons they had in stock?
Yes; that is their function.
I think that is so infantile as to be impossible for anybody seriously to consider it. Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll wanted to know what the quantity in stock was and I understand it was the intention of the Prices Advisory Body, when they had the final figures available, to supply that information. I presume it will be supplied in the ordinary way.
Between Friday and Monday.
I am not responsible for the Prices Advisory Body. It conducts its own business and follows its own procedure. The Deputy knows that or ought to know it by now. The Prices Advisory Body will presumably supply the information she wants. On the question of second grade coal as compared with first grade coal, I understand the position to be that the total quantity of second grade coal imported into Dublin is about 60,000 or 70,000 tons, out of 500,000 tons.
Has the Minister figures to support that?
The Deputy may not interrupt continuously.
The Deputy obviously thinks this is the Prices Advisory Body. It is not. The Deputy wants to re-try the whole case here. It was tried by the Prices Advisory Body, weighted as it is on the consumers' side. The Prices Advisory Body has recommended an increase of 30/- a ton, when the coal merchants sought 48/6. To the extent that they have protected the public from having to pay an increase of a further 18/6 a ton, I think they have done a good job. We would all like to see coal prices lower, but, if we buy coal, we must pay the price asked for it by the person who sells it. That is particularly true in the case of any of the markets to which we have access and where they are charging higher prices for coal than the price at which we can get it.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 19th June, 1956.