I should like to thank the Chair for giving me permission to raise on the Adjournment the difficulties arising out of the pending prosecutions in respect of garages that charged the increased price for petrol prior to the coming into effect of the Ministerial Order.
On budget day the Minister for Finance imposed an increase of 20p per gallon on petrol. On the passing of a resolution before midnight on that day, February 27, that order came into effect after midnight. It referred to suppliers of petrol so that deliveries as and from that time were subject to the new price increases. The problem arose because retailers were not allowed increase the price of petrol to the consumer until the following Monday because the relevant order so far as they were concerned—Maximum Prices (Petroleum Products) (No. 2) Order 1980—was issued on 28 February but stipulated that the price increase could not be imposed until 3 March. Many retailers had to purchase petrol immediately after the budget in order to replenish their stocks simply because there was a substantial run on stocks prior to the budget in the almost certain knowledge that the prices would be increased. The result of this was that on the Thursday morning many stations were without petrol and deliveries made were at the new price.
The choice that faced the retailers was either to sell to their customers at the old price, thereby incurring a loss of 20p per gallon, or to close their premises and wait until the Monday when they could apply the new price legitimately. This was a rather invidious choice, a choice that was forced on the retailers by the administrative bungling of the Department of Industry, Commerce and Tourism. We know what was said before when garages closed. Had they closed in this case they would have been accused again of exploiting the motorist. It would have been said that those retailers had purchased petrol at the pre-budget rate and were hoarding it until they could apply the 20p increase. In these circumstances many garage owners decided to sell to their customers at the new price and in many instances they were warned by officers of the Revenue Commissioners that they were in breach of the order and were threatened with prosecution. That threat still hangs over them.
What I am trying to highlight is the unfairness of the attitude adopted by the Revenue Commissioners in the circumstances in which the retailers found themselves through no fault of their own. Indeed, officers of the Revenue Commissioners told some garage owners that they could sell the petrol at the new price provided they guaranteed to refund to the customers the 20p per gallon extra being charged.
Faced with the Hobson's choice of closing or of suffering a loss of 20p per gallon many thousands of retailers decided to close because they were not in a position to absorb the loss that they would otherwise have incurred. As a result of this many people who needed to use their cars during the weekend were not able to get petrol. Nobody can say how much inconvenience this situation caused, possibly there was even loss of life as a result of doctors not being able to attend to emergencies. I have not heard of any such case but it is a possibility. It was very wrong on the part of the Department not to have coordinated the orders so that the new prices would have applied simultaneously to both retailers and suppliers.
My reason for raising this matter this evening is to try to ensure that proceedings will not issue against people who regarded themselves as acting fairly and in a practical manner on the occasion in question.
