asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce when he hopes to receive the flour tribunal's recommendations; and if it is expected that they will be published at an early date.
178.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Report of Flour Tribunal.
177.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if it is proposed to increase the price of bread and flour.
I propose with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 177 and 178 together.
As I have already announced, the report of the Flour and Bread Prices Advisory Body is expected to be completed about the end of the present month. I will arrange to have the report published as soon as possible afterwards. Future prices for flour and bread will depend upon the decisions taken on the recommendations in the report.
Are there any interim arrangements made between the Minister and the millers, pending the outcome of the inquiry?
Only those announced publicly. Broadly, they consist of the adherence by the millers to the old price, pending the outcome of the inquiry and the decision on it, and an undertaking that the millers will be recouped any sum which they were found to be entitled to as a result of the report of the tribunal from the time of the application for the increase.
In the meantime, they will not get anything from the State?
Nothing.
What would happen in the event of the Prices Tribunal deciding that flour and bread prices should be reduced?
In regard to recoupment? This is a problem I will worry about when it arises.
Will the Minister say whether or not the Act under which prices are controlled has been contravened?
By the millers?
Yes.
I am not sure if I know what the Deputy means. If he means what I think he means, there is some evidence to suggest that there were breaches of the Order made under the Prices Act. But there is some doubt about this. The Deputy will note the way I phrase it. I am not saying positively there were breaches. In so far as there were any such breaches, I think the position has been remedied and that the people concerned have either recouped the money they charged which they should not have charged, or have given a credit note.
There is evidence of contravention of the Order made?
There is some evidence that would suggest there was contravention.
Is the Minister going to pursue this?
No. If, as I believe, the position is that those who overcharged have either refunded the money or have given a credit note for the amount of the overcharge, I do not intend to pursue it further.
The Minister will not take any action against anybody who contravenes the Order he made?
Not if they have refunded or made arrangements to give credit for the amount they overcharged.
Have all the refunds been made and all the credit notes given?
To the best of my knowledge.
Does invoicing a new price constitute an offence under the Order?
I think so, but I am not the person to pronounce on that.
The Minister is aware that in the majority of cases, new prices were invoiced?
I am aware they were invoiced in some cases. I am also aware there were numerous cases in which no invoices were issued at all.
It was patched up and covered up?
No. I do not want to make the position any worse than it is, but I did say in public that there was a direct and deliberate effort to challenge the authority of the Government in this matter by the millers and that I hoped they would think better of the situation. They did think better of it. I must acknowledge that. But there was no deviation one iota by the Government in what they had offered to the millers before they went that far and afterwards. There was no change whatever in what I put to the millers and what they accepted.
Why should the taxpayers be asked to pay in retrospect for a price increase that may be decided upon by the Prices Tribunal? Surely these prices should operate only from the acceptance of the recommendation by the Minister?
There is a difficulty here in that, on the one hand, if you are to be fair to the purchasers of goods, prices should not be increased any more than is absolutely necessary and lawful. On the other hand, if you want to be fair to the producers, you cannot delay the necessary investigation of it for months on end, maybe at the cost of very large sums of money to such producers and say: "It is unfortunate for you that it took us so long to investigate." This would not be equitable. The arrangement reached here is an effort to meet the equities concerned, both for the millers and the public.
It will make a joke of price control if this system, whereby the taxpayer is to be asked to pay——
Not the taxpayer.
It is the taxpayer.
Question No. 179.