Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 11 Jul 1972

Vol. 262 No. 7

Prices (Amendment) Bill, 1971: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

I have already explained the reasons for wanting the deletion of this section.

On the deletion of section 3, this Bill was to apply to the price of houses. For the purposes of the Bill a house was to be deemed to be a commodity just as a grocery item or a suit of clothes is deemed to be a commodity. The price of houses was to be investigated and to be controlled. The housing industry is one of the largest and most fundamental industries in the country and one of the most important because, if people cannot get a house at the right price, the economy is in trouble. It has a relationship to wage demands and to the frustrations of young married couples looking for somewhere to live.

The Minister has now conferred with the Minister for Local Government and decided to delete this section from the Bill. Deputy Desmond and I put down two rather similar amendments—his was rather broader than mine—including the price of the land with the price of the house as a commodity. The House decided to discuss them before the Minister moved the deletion of the section and there is nothing we can do about it. What has happened? It is nice to know that Ministers of State are now speaking to one another, which they were not doing not so very long ago. The Minister tells us that he has conferred with the Minister for Local Government and that the Minister for Local Government is looking into the matter and setting up a committee, and that there will be a comprehensive approach to the question of the price of houses. In the meantime, he may withdraw a grant from somebody whose house is deemed to be too expensive. That is a very milk and water approach.

What was the thinking not so very long ago? One of the good things the Minister has done—and I have always given him credit for anything he did which I felt was right—was setting up the National Prices Commission. That body are providing speedy recommendations. We are not now dealing with prices a year or two years too late. We are dealing with them within a reasonable period of time. The Minister quoted the report of the National Prices Commission for June. The heading is: "New House Prices". At paragraph 26 on page 22 they said:

In anticipation of the enactment of the Prices (Amendment) Bill, 1971, we—

—that is, the National Prices Commission—

—asked an Foras Forbartha to undertake a study to assist us in preparatory work in relation to the control and surveillance of the prices of new houses. The terms of reference for this study were:

(a) to examine the behaviour of the prices for similar houses erected by the same builder in the same area over the last three or four years;

(b) to examine the changes in land, labour and materials costs over the same period;

(c) to suggest ways in which the prices of new houses might be controlled under the Prices (Amendment) Bill, 1971, as introduced.

The study was made by Mr. L. F. Shanley, Senior Research Officer, and Mr. T. Boland. We received the final draft of their report on 16th June, 1972. The report is now being printed and will be published as Occasional Paper No. 2 within the next few weeks. Interested parties are invited to submit their comments and observations not later than 30th September, 1972. After we have had the opportunity of studying submissions, we will draw conclusions and make recommendations; we would hope to publish these not later than our November, 1972, monthly report.

Up to June 16th, 1972, the National Prices Commission were being entirely duped by the Fianna Fáil Party into believing that the Government were capable of introducing price controls that would affect some of the entrepreneurs, to use the kindest word, who lurk among their ranks and who make vast fortunes out of the misfortunes of the less well off sections of our community.

At the Fine Gael Ard-Fheis in Cork I said that when it came to the fixing of prices which would make the boot pinch in the case of the people behind the Fianna Fáil Party, the people who give the huge subscriptions and have the power, that would be the day when the Fianna Fáil Government would not enact price control legislation. Everybody knows that large builders are among the large subscribers to and controllers of the Government now in office. That is the public scandal we are facing in this city in particular and there is nobody in this city who does not know it.

That is an outrageous statement for the Deputy to make. It is scandalous that a Deputy should come in here and make a statement of that kind.

I come in here and make a statement of that kind because I am aware that most of Deputy Timmons' constituents would make the same statement or, if they were here to hear me, they would applaud me for making it if they were allowed. Everybody in the streets knows it is true.

It is not true.

While there may be a facade of price control and profit control in this legislation, it is true that the powers behind the Fianna Fáil Party are the large builders who have been building a large number of small houses or relatively cheaper type houses, for young married couples. Now the entire section that deals with houses is being withdrawn from the Bill.

If the Minister for Local Government had been doing his job over the past few years, if he had been observing the prices of houses as they skyrocketed, if he had listened to the pleas of the people who had to pay those prices, he would have taken the action long ago which it is now suggested he is going to take. When the National Prices Commission—that excellent institution; I give the Minister that—created a situation in which the boot was pinching in the case of the powers behind the throne, legislation controlling the price of houses went out the window. I said that in Cork. I said it outside this House.

We will oppose the motion by the Minister to delete this section. We say as vehemently as we can that the Minister's action is completely against the spirit of price control. If the Minister for Local Government is to set up a committee to deal with this matter more properly, when this Bill was printed only a few short months ago why was it thought proper by the Cabinet to include houses? Why should the Minister for Industry and Commerce have to eat humble pie and say: "After conferring with the Minister for Local Government and other Ministers, I have decided to delete completely from this Bill any control of houses?"

In the same spirit the Minister said about an hour ago that he could not do anything about rents. Rents and repayments on houses have a direct effect on the amount of food and clothes a man can buy for his children when he is living on limited income. If there is no price control on houses, there is no prices legislation. The faceless men, who provide even the £100,000 which is locked up until somebody signs for it, have succeeded in taking Fianna Fáil by the scruff of the neck and getting their own way. Thank God a time is coming when that will not happen.

(Cavan): I understand that we are discussing the deletion of section 3, thereby removing house building from price control. Earlier we sought to include the site of the house in the price control legislation. If there is one thing more than another causing widespread concern in the country at the present time it is the cost of houses and of sites for houses. The Minister must be aware of this because in the sphere of public authority houses we all have the experience from time to time of tenders being sent up and being considered excessive by the Minister for Local Government and being sent back to the local authority with instructions to readvertise. I suppose the Minister for Local Government has some control over that type of house building. The result of this, of course, is that local authority schemes are delayed unduly.

There is another type of house-building, the private sector type of house building. I want to say here what I have said on many occasions outside this House, that I have the greatest admiration for young married couples who build their own houses. I would hate to imagine what the housing position would be today were it not for the sacrifices which these young people undergo in order to provide themselves with proper houses when they are getting married. Indeed, I do not know whether the tribute should be paid to the young wife or to the husband.

We have reached the stage where people are not prepared, if they can avoid it at all, to accept makeshift accommodation or to rent flats. That is very wise of them because if in the early days of marriage people tolerate makeshift accommodation, in many cases they are left in this unsuitable accommodation for years.

When I say that I salute and admire those in the private sector who build houses for themselves, I am fully conscious of the fact that a great number of them are shouldering burdens in excess of what they might reasonably be expected to bear in defraying the cost of these houses. There are widespread complaints about excessive charges for houses and for sites for houses. One would have thought that this was a sphere in which the Government would do something positive about controlling prices.

When this measure was introduced and ordered to be printed on 15th July, 1971, it was thought proper to write in section 3 to control the price of houses. It is an extraordinary thing that when the Bill is about to pass through the Oireachtas there should be a change in thinking as to the method of house price control. Instead of subjecting house-building to the ordinary machinery of price control, there is this extraordinary proposition by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to delete section 3.

It is a fact that I spoke to an amendment earlier this afternoon designed to exclude certain services from the ambit of the Bill but in doing so I made it clear that these services were already controlled and I offered to the Minister another and more rigid, if he liked, method of controlling those services. Here we have a proposal by the Minister simply to delete section 3 and to put nothing in its place.

We have had what I consider to be a vague statement by the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Local Government, over the past few days, in relation to housebuilding, that he proposes to withhold grants in certain cases where he considers that the houses built are not value for money. That is a fair summary of what the Minister proposed. He gave some vague promise about establishing an inquiry into the price of houses. I believe that this is, in fact, a gimmick on the part of the Government to delay any real or effective control of house-building.

I have no doubt that the Government were lobbied, and lobbied very severely, on this issue because we know that a great number of Government supporters and Government financiers are engaged in housebuilding in the city of Dublin and elsewhere. I believe that the Government are not serious about this proposal by the Minister for Local Government. I doubt if the proposal to withhold grants is capable of being enforced. Who will decide in an ad hoc manner in each case whether a house is value for money? How can you control housebuilding unless you control land prices? What will the Government do about that?

This Bill is being sought and probably will be passed before the Dáil goes into recess. If section 3 were not deleted the Minister would have power under the Bill to control house prices and if he accepted a Fine Gael amendment he would have power to control land prices. The Bill is being sought without section 3 and in lieu of section 3 we are being given this vague scheme of the Minister for Local Government. When will it come into operation? When will standard prices be fixed? There are different prices in different parts of the country. Under the threat of the grants being withheld, will there be a refusal on the part of builders to accept orders for houses unless larger deposits are paid?

That could be one result of the threat by the Minister for Local Government to withhold housing grants because, as we all know, part of the modus operandi for paying for houses was that the grants and loans were handed over to the builder. If the builder now finds himself in the position that he may not be able to collect the grants because the Minister for Local Government believes that the house is not value for money he will increase the deposit. If he does that the result will be that it will be more difficult for people who are in need of houses, and who are prepared to provide them for themselves, to get them.

Some building contractors would have been brought to their senses if this section was allowed form part of the Bill. They would have said that they had better play the game and give value for money or they would find themselves subject to the national yardstick which will stabilise prices. The proposal of the Minister for Local Government is very vague. One of the reasons why the cost of houses has gone up in urban areas is the difficulty in obtaining sites. We have the Planning Act of 1963 which is enforced very rigidly by the Minister for Local Government. In some places it is very difficult to get planning permission. You are told you cannot build a house on a national arterial road, if the building constitutes a ribbon development or an urban sprawl, or you cannot build a house if three or four houses are built without public sewerage and have to depend on septic tanks.

The result of all this is that the local authority planning section are very efficient and operate the Planning Act to the fullest extent. It does not cost anything to do that and it does not cost anything to say "no". It does not cost anything to say that you cannot build here or you cannot build there. Those urban authorities are falling down in their duty to provide serviced sites. It costs money to provide serviced sites and if it is in the national interest rigidly to enforce the 1963 Planning Act then the Exchequer should come to the assistance of people who want serviced sites and there should be substantial grants given in urban areas.

We are not embarking on a debate on housing, I hope.

(Cavan): No, not on housing in general but on house prices. If the Planning Act, 1963, is to be rigidly enforced the Exchequer should come along and provide serviced sites in urban areas and in other parts of the country where they are needed. They are not doing that and as a result it is more difficult to get sites and they are more expensive. The Government have fallen down completely in their duty to assist in providing houses at reasonable prices for people who want them. One way in which they have fallen down completely is by not providing proper serviced sites. There are Deputies from all parts of the country who could point to urban areas in which no sites for the private sector have been serviced by the urban authorities within the last 20 years.

It would be much better to leave this section in the Bill, even if it took a little time to get teeth to operate it, than to remove it and then promise the vague type of machinery which the Minister for Local Government has promised. It will be a hit and miss sort of scheme for some time to come. There will be allegations that one man got his grant, that another did not, that one builder was given his grant because he had plenty of influence with the Government and that another builder did not get his grant.

I do not see how we can discuss these matters on this section.

(Cavan): I understand that the case made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce for deleting section 3 is that the Minister for Local Government is providing an alternative and a more effective type of price control. I am trying to point out that the make-believe sham type of price control promised by the Minister for Local Government will not work. It will hit the man who wants to get the house built rather than the builder and it will make it impossible for people with modest deposits to get houses built. Deposits for modest type houses will be increased to protect the builder from the danger of the State and local government grants being withheld. I would like to hear a lot more about the scheme which the Minister for Local Government has in mind before I could agree to deleting housing from the Prices Bill.

Housing is one of the basic requisites of life and this is something that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is washing his hands of in a Bill which is supposed to control all commodities and all services. It is a disgrace and I would like to know the reason behind it. I would like to know what type of lobbying secured the removal of housing from the Bill and the substitution of this other hit and miss type of scheme which is designed to hit the person who requires the house rather than the housebuilder.

I would like to say a few words. I arrived here when Deputy Donegan was holding forth in his denigration of the private building sector of our country. No county has benefited more from building efforts than County Louth, but the Deputy had not the courtesy to acknowledge that. I have been in County Louth and have seen the development there. The corporation have made notable efforts to provide houses for the homeless people there and for people who have to be housed under the regulations. On top of that, the private building sector has helped immensely to enrich the Deputy's county. Nevertheless, he denigrates the whole system of private building in this country. Builders have to make great sacrifices in some cases to get sites, and local authorities have made great strides in helping small builders. In this city they have provided thousands of sites. Deputy Donegan's party is committed to a policy of private ownership, and as long as that principle is accepted obviously prices have to maintain a market value.

A debate on housing per se does not arise on this section. The question of housing is one for another Minister.

You have allowed two Deputies——

I have not allowed any two Deputies. I tried to prevent the last Deputy who mentioned it from proceeding.

With due respect to you, a Cheann Comhairle, you allowed Deputy Donegan and Deputy Fitzpatrick to discourse on the implications——

I informed Deputy Fitzpatrick that housing did not arise under this section. This is a Prices (Amendment) Bill, not a Housing Bill.

You permitted——

(Cavan): I was in order.

I listened to him here for 15 or 20 minutes and I listened earlier to Deputy Donegan.

(Cavan): I did not talk about the record of the Louth County Council or the Drogheda Corporation.

I want to acknowledge the contribution of private builders.

Housing does not arise on this measure. We are discussing the deletion of section 3 of the Prices (Amendment) Bill.

I appreciate that, but you have allowed two Deputies from one party to discuss housing here, and you deny me the opportunity of making any observations on it.

Because they would not be in order. Otherwise I would gladly allow the Deputy to to speak on housing as he did last week on the Housing Bill.

In relation to what the two Deputies have contributed, I want to congratulate the Minister for Local Government on making his announcement in regard to efforts to curb rising prices where they are not justified.

Question negatived and section deleted accordingly.

Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 4, lines 34 to 38, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following subsections:

"() Section 19 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by—

(a) the substitution of `or rendering any service' for `specified in the Third Schedule to this Act',

(b) the substitution for `in a specified manner the retail price charged by him for that commodity' of the following:

`in a specified manner—

(a) the retail price (stated as a single amount and inclusive of any charge made by the person for any tax payable in respect of the commodity) charged by him for that commodity, or

(b) the charge (stated as a single amount and inclusive of any charge made by the person for any tax payable in respect of the service) charged by him for that service,

as the case may be', and

(c) the insertion of the following subsection:

`(2) (a) The Minister may from time to time by order—

(i) require that where, for the purposes of or in connection with the sale by retail by a person of a commodity, the retail price of the commodity is stated orally by the person or by a servant or agent of the person or is stated on the commodity or on any container or wrapper in which the commodity is packed or on a ticket or label attached to the commodity or to such container or wrapper or in a catalogue or advertisement or in a notice or other document (other than an invoice), the price so stated shall be stated as a single amount inclusive of any charge made by the person for any tax payable in respect of the commodity, and

(ii) require that where, for the purposes of or in connection with the rendering of a service by a person, the charge for the service is stated orally by the person or by a servant or agent of the person or is stated in any catalogue or advertisement or in a notice or other document (other than an invoice) the charge so stated shall be stated as a single amount inclusive of any charge made by the person for any tax payable in respect of the service.

(b) (i) Where a statement (other than an oral statement) to which an order under paragraph (a) of this subsection applies is not in conformity with the provisions of the order, the person selling by retail the commodity to which the statement relates or, as the case may be, rendering the service to which the statement relates shall be deemed, for the purposes of section 22 of this Act, to have contravened the provisions of the order.

(ii) Where an oral statement to which an order under the said paragraph (a) applies is not in conformity with the provisions of the order, the person who made the statement shall be deemed for the purposes of the said section 22, to have contravened the provisions of the order.'.

( ) Section 22 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion in paragraph (b) after `display' of `or renders a service for a greater charge than that shown in any such list'."

Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 may be taken together, as amendment No. 9 appears to meet Deputy Corish's amendment, No. 10.

By agreement we would withdraw No. 10.

The National Prices Commission put forward an amendment to the Bill that section 6 (2) of the Bill as drafted should be amended to provide that persons rendering services may, by order, be required to display their charges for these services. At present price display orders may be made only in respect of a limited number of commodities and the effect of the subsection now being substituted by the amendment will be that I, as Minister, will not be restricted as to the range of commodities in respect of which price display orders may be made. The proposal by the National Prices Commission that the Minister would also have power to make a price display order in respect of services appears to be a natural corollary to the powers which the Minister will have in relation to the price of commodities.

In addition, the National Prices Commission put forward a further amendment to the Bill to provide that all prices marked on goods displayed or quoted at retail level should be tax-inclusive prices. It should be noted that in the amendment the charges displayed or quoted in respect of services are also now included.

This amendment stems from the commission's concern that as much information as possible on the prices of goods should be available to the consumer and that as far as possible the consumer should be facilitated in the matter of comparing prices as between one retailer and another. Therefore, the commission take the view— and I share it—that it would not be sufficient to compel retailers to state whether their prices are tax-inclusive or not, since this would mean the consumers would still have the difficult task of comparing tax-inclusive prices in one retail outlet with tax-exclusive prices in another. It may, in addition, be argued that tax-inclusive prices will make it easier for retailers to charge excessive tax on goods. The answer to this is that if at present a retailer is bent on charging excessive prices for goods he does not have to have recourse to charging excessive tax in order to achieve this object.

It should also be noted that the Bill already provides that in the case of retail price display orders the retail price displayed must be inclusive of tax. There are, therefore, three separate categories. The provision in regard to tax inclusive prices does not apply in regard to goods whose prices are not displayed. The whole object of the amendment is to ensure that customers will have better protection.

I want an assurance. The amendment refers to the Third Schedule of the 1958 Act which is restricted to a list of ten items including batch bread, flour, butter, tea and so forth. Does this provision give power to make orders for the display of prices on all commodities?

With such things as supermarkets operating nowadays, the housewife could end up with a smaller basket of groceries for more money if we restricted ourselves to the list in the Third Schedule.

We can control any item. It covers the complete range.

Does the Minister intend to take power to compel restaurant owners to display price lists as they do in Europe?

I have power to do it under the Bill.

Does the Minister intend to do it? If so, more power to him.

That would be my intention. Recently, I made an order on the recommendation of the NPC to display prices of a number of articles in grocery stores and butchers' shops. I have no preconcieved intentions in regard to a wider field. What I am doing here is taking the power.

I entreat the Minister to do this in respect of restaurants. On the Continent small cafés serving excellent food display prices. All can see the prices. Of course, people who have been in the town or district for a while will know the reputation of the café but a person can go into the café wondering if it is too expensive. It is, therefore, necessary to have a price list displayed.

The general complaint of housewives is the very wide variation in prices as between one end of a street and another, one town or another or one county and another. At one end of a street a housewife may get the same article for 25 per cent less than at the other end. Does this give the Minister power to compel the shopkeeper to display prices so that the consumer will know what has to be paid?

That should remove entirely the anomaly that exists at the moment in regard to price variations. Does this give the Minister power to fix prices for goods in retail shops?

What I am doing here is taking power to make it compulsory to display prices but this will not take away the possibility of different prices being charged for the same goods in different towns or different counties or different shops. I read in today's Irish Independent an article arising from the application of a recent order. A whip around had revealed blatant divergence in prices for identical articles. Of course, one needs to be very careful or one compares the high price in one place with the low price in another. Very often the low price means the article is being sold under cost and that article would be what we described during a discussion on earlier legislation as a loss leader. What we are talking about here is the power to make orders that prices be displayed in respect of all commodities. This does not mean there will not be competition.

Accepting the fact that there must be differences in prices—transport costs alone would call for this—where will the prices be displayed? Can they be displayed under the counter or will they be displayed on the individual articles? Every housewife in the country will be exceedingly interested in the effects of this amendment.

There will be the demand for a public display of a price list. This means publication of a list in the window or somewhere prominent in the shop. I will have power to insist that the prices be shown on a display notice or on the articles or on a collection of the same article.

Will it be mandatory on the shopkeeper to do it?

This gives the Minister power to make it mandatory.

Could the Minister confirm whether arising out of the passing of this Bill, and particularly this amendment, in future the scope of the retail price display orders will be substantially increased and that the method of the display itself will be broadened? This is a matter of great public interest and concern, and confirmation of it tonight from the Minister would be of considerable importance. It has been commented on, understandably, by members of the public that the Third Schedule to the 1958 Act had a very limited range of ten items from the point of view of a retail display order. Now I gather the NPC can recommend a much more variable way in which the prices will have to be displayed, on tags and statements, and orally. I would strongly recommend that the Minister should make this fact of life more widely known, particularly in the public press, that the scope of retail prices display orders will be enlarged substantially and that the specified manner of display will also be enlarged quite considerably under the Bill. The Minister might usefully comment on that.

I can say that there is unlimited scope as to the particular articles that can be ordered into a display list. The Deputy asked a question about the size of displays—the size of the print?

I am not unduly concerned about the actual size but under the Third Schedule, the old display order we have, including the one which the Minister published recently, was confined to bread, flour, butter, tea, eggs, potatoes, beef, mutton, bacon, pork and oranges. As I now gather, under the new legislation, the Minister may specify any other commodity and insist that any commodity be brought within a public display order. It does not seem to have yet dawned on the public that this Bill will give the Minister the power to do that, nor does it seem to have dawned on the public that the National Prices Commission can extend both the range of commodities which will appear on a prices display order but also the manner in which the prices may be tagged on to particular commodities.

I am pleased to see the Minister accepting in a much more elaborate form the amendment we put down, No. 10, which we are withdrawing, and in which we asked if the Minister could require a person to display the price charged for a service, and that the Minister in his amendment No. 9 has very substantially extended the scope of such orders and the means by which they be displayed, because there is a great deal of jiggery-pokery going on at the moment in relation to the actual marking of prices on commodities and I think—I make this point now as it is germane—that a decent Trade Descriptions Act, together with this Bill, would ensure that prices were both true and related to the actual commodity being sold.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 7.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 5, line 27, to add to the section a new subsection as follows:

"(5) Whenever functions under the Acts are transferred from the Minister for Industry and Commerce to any other Minister of State there shall be prior consultation with the National Prices Commission on the matter."

In this amendment we are specifically asking that the National Prices Commission be consulted by the Minister before he transfers functions to any other Minister of State. I gather that as a result of the enlarged scope of the Bill, there is quite a bit of fright in a number of other Departments. Local Government were scared stiff when it was discovered that houses came under this Bill.

And got away with it.

Now they have managed to grab back housing under the price control of their Department. Likewise, there was consternation in the Department of Transport and Power but that has been overcome. My worry is that where a specific commodity particularly under departmental control comes up for surveillance or report, the Minister concerned can grab it and take it to his bosom before the National Prices Commission or the Minister for Industry and Commerce can get hold of it, and it can be neatly shouldered on to another Minister without any prior consultation. We strongly suggest to the Minister that where in any case he is transferring functions from himself to another Minister, he should first consult the National Prices Commission.

We think that is eminently reasonable and fair, and if the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, perhaps he would give some indication that the senior officers in his Department, working under the auspices of the National Prices Commission, would keep a watching brief and ensure that if something is to be hived off from the Department of Industry and Commerce to another Department, they will bring it to the notice of the National Prices Commission because inevitably there will be very considerable difficulty. All the other Government Departments will naturally bitterly resent Industry and Commerce sticking its nose into what they would regard as their private empire in terms of price control and surveillance and we suggest that it is in the national interest that the National Prices Commission should have a general role in the form of some prior consultation. If he is not prepared to accept the amendment, he might be prepared to indicate, as a matter of personal policy and administrative operation, that he would say to other Departments when they ask him to give them that function "May I have some time to consult the National Prices Commission before handing it over to you?" We think this would improve the overall effectiveness of the National Prices Commission.

I want to say that we on the Opposition side most certainly want to take the opportunity to congratulate the National Prices Commission on the excellent work it is doing in the field of price surveillance and specific reporting on specific items. We feel it is most deserving of congratulation. The monthly reports which have caused quite a stir nationally amongst the public, trade unions and employer and trading and commercial organisations, are invaluable and I have no doubt will make a very distinctive contribution to a more effective system of price surveillance and influence, bearing in mind the difficulty of having price control itself. I have no doubt that the amendment we have down would also add to an improvement in the general operation of the National Prices Commission.

I have said that I am opposed to this amendment, not because of any specific animosity towards embracing it, but because apart from any other consideration, it would not be desirable that the National Prices Commission should be spelled out by name in the Bill which, as I hope, will be in force over a long number of years. There might be a possibility at some time in the future that the commisson might be dissolved or replaced by a body with similar functions but with a different name. In that contingency, the question of amending the Prices Act would arise simply because the National Prices Commission might have become something else.

It is my intention, and I have agreed informally, to consult the commission in regard to the transfer of functions proposed in section 7 of the Bill and to talk to other Departments where functions are being transferred. From my point of view I can truthfully say that I would recommend the NBC for doing the job any other Minister might want done in this regard. On the other hand, the Deputy spoke about the fact that the "empires" inside other Departments would not like interference in this regard. It was not the Minister for Justice who was specifically indicating any aversion to taking on the NBC but the people who would be affected by the regulations. Let us not talk about the Government Departments solely in this regard. They are not always guilty. If the Deputy, on behalf of his colleagues, accepts the fact that I have agreed informally to consult with the committee on this point. I would propose doing that.

I am grateful to the Minister.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8 agreed to.

Perhaps we could discuss amendment No. 16 with amendment No. 12. Amendment No. 16 is related to it.

NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 6, before section 9, to insert the following section:

"The following section is hereby substituted for section 26 of the Principal Act:

`Every person who commits or is deemed to have committed an offence under any section of this Act shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 (together with, in the case of a continuing offence, a fine not exceeding £10 for every day on which the offence is continued), but not exceeding £100 in total or, at the discretion of the court, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both such fine and such imprisonment, or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £500 (together with, in the case of a continuing offence, a fine not exceeding £50 for every day on which the offence is continued) or, at the discretion of the court, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or both such fine and such imprisonment."'.

Is it not merely bringing up the penalties from the 1958 standard?

This is what it amounts to. It is bringing the penalties up-to-date. In addition to that, we had no penalty for conviction on indictment. This is bringing the penalties into line with similar types of penalties.

And into line with the value of money.

To a great extent it is a drafting amendment.

I am happy with it.

Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 9.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 6, subsection (1), line 13, after "an order" to insert "made by the Government".

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 6, subsection (2), lines 15 and 16, to delete "under section 22A (1)" and to substitute "made by the Government under the said section 22A".

What does this amendment mean?

It means to add on "made by the Government under the said section 22A."

Of the 1958 Act?

It is necessary to have this amendment. It does not change the content. It is to delete "under section 22A (1)" and to substitute "made by the Government under the said section 22A". It is a straightforward drafting technicality.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 15:

Before section 10 to insert a new section as follows:

"A local authority may with the consent of the Minister for Local Government appoint a committee, hereinafter referred to as a Local Prices Committee to perform such functions as may be assigned to it from time to time by the Minister for Industry and Commerce with the consent of the Minister for Local Government. A Local Prices Committee shall be deemed to be an approved local council for the purpose of the Local Government Acts."

The suggestion in amendment No. 15 is rather important. We are proposing that there should be statutory provision for the setting up of local prices committees to perform such functions as may be assigned to them from time to time by the Minister for Industry and Commerce with the consent of the Minister for Local Government. The reason why we have tried to marry-in the prices committees is that we see them as an essential part of local administration and local government. We tried to correlate them with the local authorities and various other local administrative committees operating on a county council basis or a local council basis. We believe very strongly that there is a need for such local prices committees.

There are a growing number of ad hoc local prices committees being set up around the country. Housewives associations get together on an ad hoc basis. Trade union organisations get together at council level and set up prices committees. We believe that it would be an enlargement of democratic discussion and debate, and a useful social contribution, if such local committees were in operation. It is not just good enough that there should be a national bureaucracy in Dublin setting out the level of retail prices throughout the country. It would be very useful if there were local committees with a number of functions. We would concur that these are the functions which the National Prices Commission have suggested. The local committees would have the function of collecting particulars of retail commodities and services at local level. The NPC could contact the committees and ask them to do local surveys of the level of prices at any given time.

We have seen the recently published survey of urban prices. This was an invaluable survey. It highlighted the disparities at provincial level. The local committees could highlight at major level the disparities in the prices of particular commodities. They could collect information and forward it on behalf of individual consumers to the National Prices Commission. They could generate local interest in prices and price comparisons by handing out information provided by the National Prices Commission. They could act as a general consumer protection agency. In many countries on the Continent, and particularly in the Scandinavian countries, these local committees are very widely known. They operate quite effectively. We recommend that local committees should be set up by the Minister under this Bill. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, perhaps he would generally encourage its purpose within his Department by asking them to write to the local trades councils throughout the country and to the local branches of the Irish Countrywomen's Association, the various chambers of commerce and the various voluntary organisations asking them to set up these committees. These committees would give the consumer an opportunity of studying the subject and finding out all the reliable information available.

That would in some degree overcome the apathy and the timidity. It would also overcome the sheer ignorance as to what exactly constitutes price control, price surveillance and price investigation. By and large it would help the consumer, the manufacturer and the local shopkeeper. Invariably the local shopkeeper is accused of being an exploiter. Very frequently it is the manufacturer who lays down the guideline to be followed or, perhaps, the wholesaler or the middleman. These matters could be clarified at local level and that would help community confidence in monitoring prices and price control. The only alternative will be ad hoc witch-hunts and semi-hysteria which would be of no help to anybody, least of all to the local consumer. It is for these reasons we urge full consideration by the Minister of this amendment.

Listening to Deputy Desmond, I got the impression that he was asking me to take power in this Bill to set up local price committees, the power to be handed over to the local authority who would appoint a committee which I would recognise as a local prices committee. Actually that power is already there and has been used. It arose out of a recommendation in the National Prices Commission's Monthly Report No. 6 of April, 1972, paragraph 41, page 33, of which states:

Having considered the comments submitted by the Department of Local Government, the Federation of Trade Associations, and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, we recommend as follows:

(i) The first pilot local prices committee should be set up in Dundalk, subject to the consent of the local authority. We chose Dundalk because there are a number of active bodies there, representative of traders and consumers' interests. Moreover, a member of the committee resides there and this will facilitate liaison between the Commission and the local committee.

In the second paragraph the report deals with the membership of the local prices committee:

(ii) The membership of this local prices committee should be as follows: a chairman appointed by the local authority, who is neither a trader nor a member of the consumers' organisation;

I wish the county manager in Louth would go ahead and do that.

The report recommends Mr. Harold O'Sullivan. Unfortunately he is unwell at the moment.

He will be back in harness.

He will. This idea of a local pilot committee was a pet subject of Mr. O'Sullivan's. When I met the Congress of Trade Unions about 18 months ago this was one of the ideas he put forward at that time. The report goes on to spell out the membership:

Mr. Harold O'Sullivan, a member of the National Prices Commission; a Prices Inspector from the Department of Industry and Commerce; one representative nominated by each of the Local Trades Council, the Irish Countrywomen's Association and the Irish Housewives' Association; three representatives of the local traders (including one from the local Chamber of Commerce) nominated by the Federation of Trade Associations. The committee should have power to co-opt two additional members. The secretary should be a local authority officer, appointed by the local authority. All members who represent traders' or consumers' interests should be local residents.

That is the pilot scheme and, in the event of its being a success, there is nothing to prevent me creating other local prices committees of a similar kind. The power is there. The only difference, as I see it, in the existing arrangement and the Deputy's proposal is that the Deputy is suggesting that the local authority should set up this committee. While it might be suggested that Dublin is too far removed from the field of local operations, nevertheless I honestly think the type of representation suggested is the ideal type for the local council to initiate and the power I have is sufficient to ensure the end product the Deputy is seeking here. I assume the Deputy is not anxious to press his amendment in view of this.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 10.

Amendment No. 16 was discussed with amendment No. 12.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 6, to delete lines 36 to 46, and to substitute: "that person shall be guilty of an offence and sections 26 to 28 of this Act shall apply in relation to the offence as if it were an offence under a section of this Act".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Barr
Roinn