asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he is aware of a report (details supplied) that the National Prices Commission, in the period 15th December to 19th January recommended price increases in 47 of the 49 cases it considered; if he is satisfied that such a large percentage of recommendations for increases should have been made; and if he is satisfied that the recommended price increase in each instance was justified and necessary.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Price Increase Recommendations.
99.
Monthly Report No. 3 —January, 1972—of the National Prices Commission indicated that from 15th December, 1971, to 19th January, 1972, the commission considered 49 notices of intention to raise prices. The commission recommended price increases in 47 of these cases. Most of the recommended increases were less than the increases proposed.
In a Press release which I issued on 25th January, 1972, in conjunction with the publication of the commission's January report, I stated that I had accepted the commission's recommendations for price increases contained in that report and in view of the Deputy's question, I feel it appropriate to quote the following comments made by the commission in their first and third reports:
(i) Report No. 1 of November, 1971
Prices must bear some relation to costs of production. Of the main items of costs, the prices of imported materials and indirect taxes lie wholly beyond our influence as a Commission. The same is true of wages and salaries. When an application for a price increase reaches us, increases in these have already occured and are generally a main reason for the application.
(ii) Report No. 3 of January, 1972
Cost increases which are not met from higher productivity and efficiency must be met from higher prices; it was only in a small minority of the cases that came before us that it would have been economically justifiable (or even possible) to meet these cost increases from profits.
In blunt terms, increases in money incomes that are matched by higher productivity in the firms that pay them are in a real sense earned. Higher money incomes that cannot be (or are not) matched by higher productivity mean higher prices, if the firms are to survive and if employment is to be maintained.
In considering applications for increases could the Minister say if investigation took place into the profit margins of the companies concerned on the products for which they sought increases?
I take it this was done. As the Deputy may be aware, there are two representatives of the Congress of Trade Unions on this commission and I am sure that they with the other representatives looked into this.
How long, on average, is there between an application for a price increase, an investigation being made and a report being issued?
That is a separate question.
It is relevant to this matter. It arises out of the Minister's reply, because I am asking if the increase was justified and necessary. Before you can decide that, you decide how long it takes for the investigation to take place.
If the Deputy wants that information he should put down that question.
The Minister has the information.
One month.
Does the Minister think one month is adequate to investigate profit margins and how the increase could be worked out in terms of profit margins?
I do.
Surely this would require longer than one month. They are 17 months examining increases in insurance and have not reached a verdict.
I think the Deputy is casting unjustified aspersions on the National Prices Commission and I think that is disgraceful.
I say that one month is not adequate.
We cannot have an argument on the question.
This is a matter of serious national importance and calls for closer investigation.
The Chair cannot allow an argument on a question.