Control of Prices Bill, 1932—Second Stage.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the investigation, and in circumstances, the regulation of prices under three heads. First of all it provides for the establishment of a commission to investigate a general level of prices charged over the country as a whole, or in particular parts of the country, for articles of common necessity. Secondly, it provides machinery for the investigation of allegations of excessive price charging in individual cases, and thirdly, for the continuous examination of prices charged for articles subject to protective duties. The first question which arises in regard to a measure of this kind is the necessity for it. Apart from any special situation that may now exist, or any situation that we may contemplate existing at some time in the future, it is our view that there should be in existence some machinery by which complaints of excessive profit taking in regard to particular commodities should be investigated, and that, at any rate, if a protective policy is brought into operation it should be accompanied by power for examination and report on prices charged for the articles subject to protective duties of one kind or another.

From time to time, since the present Administration came into office, various complaints have been received in my Department with respect to prices. The majority of these complaints had reference to prices charged in individual cases: that is, the price charged in a particular town by a particular shopkeeper to a particular customer. There were other complaints with respect to the general level of prices for some particular commodity. There is at present no effective machinery for the investigation of any such complaints. In certain cases we caused inquiries to be made through local officers of the Departments and through other sources. We found that some of the complaints made were undoubtedly justified. When representations were made to the guilty parties, if I may so call them, various undertakings and expressions of regret were received, but of course it is clear that that is an entirely unsatisfactory method of dealing with such allegations.

We think that the people of the country should be provided with some machinery by which they could have their complaints investigated, and that, from all points of view, it is desirable that this machinery should be established as soon as possible. There is, of course, always the possibility, in a country like this when a protective policy is put into operation, that combinations of producers of some particular commodity may arise for the purpose of controlling prices. The controlling of prices in that way may not, of its own accord, necessarily be bad, but of course there would always be the temptation to advance prices to whatever limit the people requiring a commodity are prepared to pay without a falling off in consumption. Apart, therefore, from any general need or any special need at the present time there should, in our opinion, be machinery to investigate prices for protected articles.

I have been asked whether there is in my Department any reason to believe that profiteering, in the accepted sense, is widespread. I have not been able to say that there is good reason to believe that profiteering is taking place. We have, as I have mentioned, received a number of complaints. We have found that some of those complaints were justified, but both the volume of the complaints and the nature of them would seem to indicate that there was no widespread attempt on the part of shopkeepers to take excessive profits. Undoubtedly, attempts were made here and there to misrepresent the position which was created by the imposition of tariffs for the purpose of getting, over a temporary period, prices that would not be justified; but, on the whole, the situation appears to be more or less normal. That does not, in our opinion, lessen the necessity for the enactment of this measure. We would have proposed, in any case, to set up machinery for the continuous investigation of prices of tariffed articles. We think that the State needs to have in existence machinery for the investigation of complaints received as to the general level of prices of commodities which are commonly used and which are necessities of life. We think, also, that when an individual citizen believes that he has been overcharged in a particular transaction he is entitled to have his allegation investigated, and, if the allegation is found to be justified, to have a refund made to him, or at any rate to have some action taken to ensure that a similar occurrence will not take place again.

The machinery of this Bill is, I think, simple. It provides for the establishment of a Prices Commission. We have had in this State before a tribunal on food prices. It was established and reported in 1926. That tribunal was given certain powers. It carried out its investigations in a very thorough manner throughout the country and presented a valuable report. Its effectiveness however, as an investigating tribunal, was in our opinion considerably weakened by the fact that it had only a definite limited existence. There was, of course, no provision in the case of that tribunal for a continuous investigation. There was no means of finding out if the representations it made to individuals in particular trades had borne any fruit, and on the report being presented nothing followed. On the report being presented to both Houses of the Oireachtas it was widely debated in the newspapers, but no action was taken on the report. The position, so far as we know, is similar to-day to what it was when the report was published.

That report showed, with respect to certain commodities, that prices were being charged which did not appear to be justified. That allegation was made in respect to some commodities as far as the whole country was concerned, and in respect to all commodities as far as parts of the country were concerned. Various reasons for these high prices were given. They did not, in all cases, arise from attempts on the part of those trading in these commodities to secure excessive profits. In some cases they arose out of wasteful methods of distribution, but of course, so far as the consumer was concerned, the result was the same if he had to pay a price which in other circumstances might have been lower.

The proposal here is to set up not a temporary commission to investigate price levels but a permanent commission which will have the same power as that exercised by the former tribunal in respect to getting evidence and in commanding the production of persons and documents. This commission will be always in existence. It will be able to go back on its previous investigations for the purpose of seeing if the representations made by it, or the action taken following its investigation, have, in fact, borne any fruit. It will be empowered to endeavour to secure the redress of any position which it thinks needs attention by the making of representations to the persons affected.

There is a provision in the Bill which enables the commission, when they have exhausted all other methods of rectifying what they consider to be an abnormally high price level in respect to a particular commodity, to fix a maximum price for the commodity in question. It is not anticipated that that power of fixing prices will have to be availed of very frequently, but it is thought that the commission would lose in effectiveness, and that its representations would have less weight, if that power to be exercised in the last resort by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, on the report of the commission, did not exist.

The commission will consist of honorary members. I say that because it gives effect to our present intention. There is power in the Bill to give remuneration to the members of the commission, but it is hoped that it will not be necessary to exercise it. We would much prefer to have a commission of honorary members, but it is conceivable that persons who would be particularly useful as members of the commission may not be able to give their time without remuneration. We could, of course, always get a commission of honorary members, but we are anxious that the commission should be composed of people who are really able to give effective service as members of it. It is possible that we may have to put on the commission, because of their professional qualifications or for some other reason, people who would be unable to act unless they were remunerated.

It is proposed that the commission will have as the principal member of its staff a person who will be styled the Controller of Prices. He will act as secretary to the commission in the carrying out of the commission's ordinary investigations. Under Part IV of the Bill he will have special duties exercisable by himself. We gave considerable thought to the manner in which we should endeavour to tackle the problem of individual cases of profiteering. It is simple to devise the means by which the general level of prices for a particular commodity can be investigated and by which manufacturers' prices for protected articles can be examined; but there was the problem as to how the allegation that a particular shopkeeper on a particular date charged a price to a particular customer in excess of the general level of prices, of charging a price which was in any case considered exorbitant, could be investigated.

The procedure we have adopted is to appoint this Controller of Prices with certain powers. If an allegation is made and if the Controller is satisfied that the allegation is one that should be investigated, that it is not a frivolous allegation or one that is based on a misconception of fact, then the Controller will cause that allegation to be investigated by an inspector acting under him. The inspector has certain powers which are set out in Section 32. He interviews on the spot the person making the complaint as well as the trader concerned. He examines into all the circumstances and reports to the Controller. On the receipt of that report the Controller examines it. If he is of the opinion that the report shows the complaint to be well-founded, he serves a notice upon the seller of the article. That notice sets out that, in the opinion of the Controller, the price charged on this particular occasion was excessive, as well as the price which the Controller would consider to be a reasonable one. He requests the seller of the article within a period of time to refund the amount of any overcharge, and to give an undertaking that, in the future he will charge a reasonable price for the commodity in question.

If the seller of the article thinks that he has not been fairly treated, that he has grounds for declining to act in the manner indicated by the Controller, he can appeal as it were from the Controller to the commission: that is, on the sole ground that the price charged by him was not higher than the general level of prices for the same commodity in the same district, and ask the commission to investigate the general level of prices. If such an appeal is made, a period of fourteen days elapses within which the commission will consider it. If the commission decide that the appeal is well-founded, and that the general level of prices in that area deserves investigation, then no further action is taken; but if, on the contrary, the commission decide that the appeal must be rejected, that the general level of prices is satisfactory in that area, and that only in this individual's case was the price exorbitant, a certificate is issued. That certificate is a document which is served on the seller of the article. It indicates the price charged by him, and the price which, in the opinion of the Controller, is a reasonable price. The certificate is published in a newspaper circulating in that area. If, after the issue of the certificate, the seller of that article offends again with regard to the same commodity, he becomes liable to a fine or a term of imprisonment.

We have provided also that the commission may, in carrying out its investigations, make a report to the Minister for Industry and Commerce recommending that an order should be made requiring the display in retail shops of the prices charged from day to day for specified articles sold in those shops. The Minister may, on that report, if he thinks the circumstances justify it, make such an order, in which case every person selling the retail commodities affected will be required to display in his place of business a price list indicating the prices current for the articles in question.

Another section provides that the Minister may at any time send to the commission a requisition requiring it to investigate the prices charged for protected commodities. It also provides that the commission may, at any time when other business permits, itself carry out such investigation. The intention is that the commission should have the prices charged for protected commodities under continuous examination and report periodically to the Minister setting out whatever information they have obtained as to the movement of prices of such commodities; whether in the opinion of the commission the prices charged are unreasonably high, the prices which they think should be charged, and their opinion as to whether an order fixing a maximum price for a particular commodity should be made. In my opinion that is likely to be the most important function of the commission. I rather anticipate that as the result of the establishment of this machinery, and the power given by the Bill, that the number of complaints of profiteering, either in individual cases or generally, is likely to diminish very considerably. Even if it were the case, I think the commission should have power to have the prices charged for protected commodities under examination and to have periodical reports furnished, say, to the Executive, the Dáil and the Seanad so that they will be fully informed of the position. There are certain other minor provisions in the Bill which can be considered at a later stage.

Apart altogether from the general principle involved, the Seanad will have little difficulty in dealing with the machinery of the Bill. Most of the amendments suggested from any source have been accepted and embodied in the Bill, and it appears to be, as far as it can be, watertight, with all reasonable safeguards inserted. The main question that arises for decision is the necessity for it and the effect which its enactment is likely to have on those engaged in trade of any kind, whether as manufacturers, wholesalers or retailers. I think on general principles the necessity for it should be clear. Even if there were no complaints of excessive prices from any quarter, such machinery should be available. We think it is the duty of the Executive to have continuous reports regarding articles in respect of which protective duties operate. We think the machinery in this Bill is the most effective to carry out such an investigation and that the operation of the Bill will tend to restore public confidence and generally to facilitate trade. It is not anticipated that the Bill will cost very much to operate. The staff required by the commission will be limited in number and will probably be obtainable within the existing Civil Service. The other expenses likely to be associated with the work of the commission will be very small and, in relation to the total expenses they will be trivial in comparison with the amount of good which the Bill can do under conceivable circumstances.

Mr. Douglas

I have read this Bill very carefully on four or five different occasions, and I read most of the discussion that took place in the Dáil. I listened carefully to the Minister's introductory statement. Still, in spite of that I feel somewhat hazy as to what the Government exactly means and what it expects to achieve from the Bill. We have, of course, for this Bill, as for all Bills in this country, the kind of criticism that it is a farce, or that it is sop to the Labour Party. If it is, it seems to me they are easily pleased. I propose to treat it as a serious measure intended to lower prices for general commodities. The Minister made a good many references to profiteering, but in the Bill you will not find any reference to profiteering. You will find that the object is to prevent unreasonably high prices. I agree with the Minister that there is very little evidence of general profiteering here. I think if you take the ordinary circumstances of the country, and the general standard of wealth, it will be pretty obvious that if there is profiteering it is amongst a very small number of people. I do not agree that the prices in many cases are right. I think there are many prices of many commodities which are decidedly high. I propose to try to examine this Bill from the point of view as to whether its operations will or can possibly reduce the standard of prices, and whether it can operate fairly and bring about what I think the Government has at the back of its mind.

At the outset, I would like to say that while I do not propose to oppose the Second Reading, I doubt very much if this Bill can bring about anything like what the Government expects. I am not opposed to an examination from time to time of the prices of commodities in general use. I am definitely in favour of an inquiry from time to time into the prices charged by manufacturers for protected commodities. I think if you adopt high protection you are obliged in the interests of the ordinary public and consumers to provide some method of inquiring into the prices charged by the manufacturers. I do not think any reasonable manufacturer has any objection to such inquiry, provided it is carried out in a strictly impartial manner and on fair lines. But, if you look at the Bill you will find there is only one remedy, and that is a maximum price. The causes of unreasonably high prices may be many. There may be too many middle men. It may be inexperienced buying on the part of the trader. It may be that he has given far too much credit to many people for whom the people who pay cash have to pay. It may be due to high wages in certain cases, though I do not think that is generally the case. It may be bad arrangement of transport. It may be too many shops in a district, and heavy distribution charges. It may be owing to individual profiteering. There is only one remedy for all these in this Bill, and that is a maximum price. I want to suggest to the House that a maximum price will not solve the problem, if a problem is found to exist. Take the retail price to commence with. If the maximum price is to be a fair one— and I am perfectly certain the Minister wishes the commission to act scrupulously fairly — the price fixed must cover the sale of that commodity under any conditions. Take a very simple commodity, a cup of tea. I imagine that a charge of 6d. for a cup of tea at the Shelbourne Hotel would be reasonable under the conditions existing, and that 4d. or 4½d. would probably be a reasonable charge in Grafton Street having regard to the rents there. Either of these charges would be gross profiteering in Meath Street. Your maximum price must cover the requirements of the large hotel. If it does not it is not fair. I do not suggest that there is to be a maximum price for a cup of tea, but if there was, you would have to fix a price which would suggest to the people in Meath Street that their price was too low.

Under the Bill you can fix only one price, the maximum price. I know that you can fix prices for different districts, but I hardly think the Minister visualises the fixing of different prices for different streets. Take any article of clothing. The price for that article in a large store in Grafton Street may be a perfectly reasonable price, but it might be profiteering in other districts where the trader has not to meet such high rents, but where the general service given is not the same and where there is not the same standard of quality. Your price must be the price suitable to the big store, otherwise it will not be fair. There is only one price, which is the maximum price. I could go on to refer to other commodities. Take the case of a trader who deals for cash only. He can and ought to be able to sell decidedly cheaper than one who carries on either on short or long terms of credit. If he has to give long credit and has a proportion of bad debts his prices must be higher. Therefore your maximum price, if it is to be fair, must be sufficient to cover the man who has given credit, whereas the real need may be to keep prices lower for cash. Nothing would be healthier than if people in this country were earning sufficient wages to pay cash. But that is not the case. Therefore the proposal as regards lowering prices generally is absolutely certain to fail. Then again it is clear that prices for a quantity will inevitably be considerably cheaper than for single articles. A firm can take a contract from a large institution at a far lower price than that at which they could sell to an individual. In the first place they can buy cheaper by placing an order for a larger quantity. Again they have not the same cost of distribution as there is for a single article. They get paid on a fixed date and they can calculate that in their price. You can only fix the price for a single article under the Bill, although in many cases the price for a quantity ought to be considerably lower. You cannot deal with that under this Bill. The Bill deals with three prices, the retail, the wholesale and the manufacturers. I suggest to the Minister that in this country there are no such three clear divisions of prices, and that if you attempt to divide them it will lead to a great deal of misunderstanding, and, to a certain amount of chaos and to almost certain unfairness. It is well known that many of the larger wholesale houses do a retail trade. The retail trade of course costs more than the wholesale trade because they sell in small quantities, whereas in the wholesale they sell in greater bulk. We have manufacturers who only deal wholesale and sell in large quantities. They can sell at keener prices because they have comparatively small distribution charges.

We have small manufacturers who advertise in the newspapers and who sell direct to the users. The manufacturer's price for a commodity to be fair must be the price of the man who goes direct to the user, who has gone to the expense of advertising and who sends out small parcels. You cannot get one maximum price which is going to be the equitable or the proper price. If you fix it for the fairly small man selling under these conditions it would be no use as a check on prices for large manufacturers. If you fix the proper price for a large manufacturer it will be grossly unfair to the small man selling under different conditions. I suggest that both of this class of manufacturers have their places here, and that it is not a question of one pushing the other out. They serve different conditions. The division of prices is not fair nor equitable.

With regard to manufacturers' prices, it does not seem to me—and I should like to say that I quite agree with the Minister that an inquiry into these prices should be made— that the fixing of a maximum price would be of any use at all. In view of all the circumstances, I do not think that it is necessary to include provision for a maximum price for manufacturers in the Bill. The reason is that the Government have in their own hands the only weapon that can adequately deal with manufacturers' prices—and that is the weapon of tariffs. If the Government are satisfied that the manufacturers are charging unreasonable prices they can stop that by means of reduced tariffs and you will not be able to do it by fixing a maximum price. When we come to the provisions of the Bill itself—I do not agree with the Minister when he said the Dáil had amended the Bill in every necessary way—I think the Minister will find that there are quite a number of other provisions which ought to be considered before the Bill goes through—but that is a matter for the Committee Stage.

When we examine the Bill, there is no definition of profiteering. There is no definition or no indication of what is a reasonable price. I myself do not think that it is possible to define such a price. If it is possible to arrange a definition, I think that it ought to be in the Bill. However, I am not able to make a suggestion on that question and I am not going to try to do so. I congratulate the Minister however on finding the wonderful word "commodity." I have looked through several dictionaries and they all differ in the exact meaning but they mostly agree that the word means something useful—we know from the Minister's speech in the Dáil that a grapefruit or a tall hat can be included under the heading of "commodity." Everything will come under the word "commodity" and probably that is intended. But when you come to the definitions in the Bill, you will find that a commodity will have to be specified. This will not be easy in many cases. I can only refer to the clothing trade, with which I am acquainted. Different specifications would be required in that trade for three or four thousand articles which are carried in the ordinary shops, or what are called by the Americans "dry goods stores." The Minister knows that, though a price may be fixed for an overcoat, that overcoat may have different linings, different buttons and so on. He knows, from his own experience of the trade that it may be of a different colour, it may be of different shapes and sizes, in fact, there is no limit almost to the different specifications. Under the Bill, you have got to specify it in detail so that it can be fixed at a certain price. I do not think that it is possible to fix a satisfactory price. I could strengthen my case by going into details of all kinds of drapery goods but I have confined myself to overcoats to save the time of the House.

I should like, however, to draw the Minister's attention to the position, say, of men's suits. I made inquiries today from a tailor and I found—I knew pretty well before—that you can get a suit made of the identical same Irish tweed in at least three different ways at three different prices. A suit can be made up by what I might call the lowest class of bespoke tailoring with the cheapest linings and the cheapest trimmings and sold at about £3 10s. It can also be made up with better quality linings and trimmings and sold for £5 5s. The same material can be made up, but with different standards of wages, by the highest class tailors with all hand work into a suit and sold for £8 15s. Exactly the same material is used in each case. Under the Bill, you are going to fix a price for that suit. Unless you go into all these details, it will be practically impossible to fix a fair maximum price, and your maximum price must be the price of the dearest article.

Under Part II of the Bill, we set up a commission. That commission is to consist of five members, two, at least, of whom are to be women, and these five people are to be sufficiently supermen or superwomen as to be able to go into the details of every kind of commodity. The Minister stated that it was his intention not to pay a salary, if it could possibly be avoided, to the members of the commission. I think that, if he wanted to achieve real efficiency, it would be very much better if he were to set up a panel of twenty-five or thirty people, of whom five would be chosen for their knowledge of the particular business under investigation. Personally, I do not think that you could find five people with knowledge of every trade. But it would not do any harm, and I think that it would have far better results if there were one or two people with actual knowledge of the particular business at each meeting of the commission. These five supermen or superwomen are going to hold their office solely at the discretion of the Minister, which means that he can take away their powers at any moment. I think the Minister will recognise that I am not making any suggestion that he would be likely to abuse that power, but my point is that you do want an independent person, or independent persons, on that commission. You want people who will not be at the Minister's mercy. I think this should be looked into and some action taken with regard to it in Committee. I honestly think that this is a real blot on the Bill and that it ought to be amended. There should be a term appointed for members of the commission so that they will know that they cannot be removed from office without cause. The provision which means that they are at the mercy of the Minister for their term of office seems to me to be unjustifiable.

With regard to Part III of the Bill, it seems to me that, in regard to the working of this part of the Bill most of the things of which I have already said with regard to the Bill generally apply in particular to the working of this section of the Bill, that is if it ever works at all. According to this part of the Bill, the commission shall make an investigation only when they are given a specific request by the Minister to investigate whether unreasonably high retail prices or unreasonably high wholesale prices are being charged for a commodity. Supposing that the commission inquires into a retail price and that they form the opinion that the retail price is reasonable but that the wholesale price is not reasonable— under the Bill, although they find that it is the wholesale price that is unreasonably high they must send notice to all the retailers dealing with that commodity. I should be very glad if the Minister would let us know what exactly is meant by that portion of the Bill. If he inquires, he will find that there are about 42,000 shops, and in the case of clothing it means, where a general drapery or dry goods commodity is concerned, the sending out of notices to anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 shops. The commission has to send out these notices to find out whether that particular price has been reduced. How are they going to find that out? I do not think that such a thing is possible. I do not think it is workable at all and if even one of these 20,000 retailers has not reduced his price, I presume a report comes to the Minister, and when that report comes to the Minister he may find it is not the retail price that is too high. It seems to me that if the commissioners find the price that is unreasonably high is not the retail price they should not have to send out the notice to the shopkeepers. If there are other reasons than excessive retail profits they should then immediately report to the Minister without putting all this machinery into effect as provided in the Bill.

There is another item that arises in connection with the fixing of a price. A price which may be perfectly fair to-day may be an unfair price next week. Generally speaking, if there is not a satisfactory arrangement to meet a rise in the price of raw material—if you have made no provision at all for that rise—the price fixed for the commodity may be grossly unfair. It might be rare that the rise would happen in a week but it might easily happen in a period of a month or so. The only machinery we have is that the Minister may revoke the licence. It is not being uncomplimentary to him to say that he could not keep in touch with changing prices of all commodities for which a price might be fixed. I do not see how he could watch these prices. If he is going to be fair he must set up machinery to watch all prices that are fixed under the Bill so that he can change them immediately prices rise. I do not see how he can do so without much greater expense than is contemplated in the statement he made to us.

Manufacturers here, to a large extent, depend for their raw material on world prices, and a rise would not necessarily mean profiteering on the part of a manufacturer. In fact, if there is to be any improvement in world trade, prices must rise, and we may easily find ourselves in for a period of steadily rising prices, just as we have seen two years of steadily declining prices.

When we come to Part IV of the Bill I find myself strongly in disagreement with the Minister—more so than in any of the other parts of the Bill. I would call it a part of the Bill for the encouragement of busybodies and petty informers at the State expense.

I totally disagree with the Minister when he says that a person who thinks he has a grievance is entitled to the whole machinery of this Bill at the expense of the State.

If the price he pays has been too high—I am not questioning that an overcharge may occur—but that one individual, because he has paid a halfpenny too much for his pint, or for a cup of tea, or a shilling too much for his overcoat, should be entitled, because he grumbles, or because he was too lazy to go to another shop next door, or even in another town, to have set up this whole machinery at the expense of the State is a suggestion with which I totally disagree. However, that is a matter on which there is a real difference of opinion between myself and the Government, and in that I cannot support it. I do seriously think, apart from this, that there is a very grave danger in this section of the Bill. Traders in large towns will not, of course, worry very much, because, there you are dealing with a large area and with thousands of people, but, if a trader in the small shop—you know what a whisper is—had twelve or twenty complaints lodged against him, the fact that—after an inspector had called, after the fourteen days had elapsed, and after the Controller had examined it, etc.—nothing happened, would not prevent its being whispered around that he was a profiteer. I think that this section is one which could lead to very grave abuse, and I doubt very much if it is worth the risk.

I have already said that I do not believe that five persons could be found who would be really competent to deal with every commodity but, when we come to this section, we find that we have one man with two or three inspectors under him who have to be able to inquire into the reasonable price of every commodity. You may say that, because there is a complaint against one man as to his price being too high, he is not entitled to the same investigation as in the case of general prices. I disagree, because you may take his livelihood from him. If you are to investigate prices for one trader, that investigation has to be a proper investigation, if the State is going to stand over it, and a proper investigation does not mean simply that an inspector walks into a shop and asks to see the invoices. He has to inquire into the conditions of business under which he trades and into the expenses generally and you must have, if you are going to be fair, exactly the same inquiry as you would have under other parts of the Bill, and, obviously, the Controller could not do that in every case. What is going to happen is that an inspector is going to call into a country shop, for the sake of argument, and say that somebody has lodged a complaint and that he intends to ask a few questions. The matter will then go to the controller and the price against which the complaint was made as being too high with regard to the general conditions of trade will be decided to be too high or perfectly reasonable—I think it would generally be decided that the price was reasonable because there would be reluctance, except in a glaring case, to take any action. I ask the House if we are justified in setting up an elaborate machinery for that purpose? The Minister himself visualises frivolous complaints. He thinks that there will be, or that there may be, frivolous complaints. I agree but I would like to go further than he goes. He favours a possible £10 fine on a person who gives false information and I think that a person who makes a frivolous complaint should be liable to exactly the same penalty.

In Part V we have provision for a list of prices and I think that that may sometimes be useful from the point of view of the general public in certain classes of trade. As the Bill stands, it includes the general drapery and clothing trade, and I suggest to the Minister—I do not suppose that it will matter very much—that it is quite unworkable so far as that trade is concerned because in this trade you have great detail—every conceivable kind of detail. This applies also to the boot and shoe trade and such a provision would mean that you would cover the whole area of a shop if you were to list everything that was different at a different price. I do not, however, suppose that it will be applied to this trade. There is a provision that an order may come into effect immediately after the order is published. I do not think that is equitable. I think that there should be an interval of at least ten days, because a shopkeeper cannot suddenly compile a list of all the articles he is going to sell immediately after the notice may appear, stating that such a list is required. Some time, anyhow, should elapse.

When we come to Part VI of the Bill we come to the part of the Bill with which I am most in agreement but, as I have already said, I do not believe that the remedy provided is of any use. I think, however, that it is desirable that the Minister should have an inquiry into the prices of protected commodities manufactured here and that the report of such inquiry should be laid on the Table of each House and that it should be possible for any member of any Party to raise the matter and make proposals for dealing with it. I do not think that you can deal with it by a system of maximum prices. You may have to deal with it by assisting the manufacturer in regard to transport, or in other ways, and you may have to deal with it by reducing the tariff, but the method of maximum price in my opinion simply will not work.

When this commission is going to the trouble of making a report, there is one matter which, I think, ought to be included in the Bill. There ought, I think, to be a report as to the price at which a protected commodity could be obtained from outside the State if it was not protected. In making that suggestion, I do not want to be misunderstood. I am interested in the manufacture of some commodities here and I certainly would welcome a fair inquiry, but I do not admit, for one moment, that there may not be proper justification for a higher price here, and I do not suggest that it would not be worth while, on certain occasions, to have a higher price, but I do say that, in the interest of the public generally, and in the interest of the manufacturer, there should be a report on prices of commodities from outside if there were no tariffs. It will be a check and a guide and something which the manufacturer here will aim at. As we are going to go to the trouble and expense of an inquiry there ought to be some provision of that kind.

In the last section—Part VII of the Bill—there are some provisions with regard to contracts which puzzle me a good deal. I think they were inserted in the Dáil. They do not seem to me in every case to be equitable, and I think they might easily be very unfair to a retailer. If, for the sake of argument, you had a retail and wholesale or a retail and manufacturer's price fixed upon a commodity, and if the retailer had a contract to get his supplies from a manufacturer for the year, he would not necessarily have a contract with his customer. In the retail trade, it is well known that contracts are frequently placed for a period of months up to a year for the supply of certain commodities, and if a retailer had to pay the manufacturer his price—in spite of the fact that a lower price might have been fixed—because he made a contract, and if he had to sell at a reduced price to the general user, it might possibly be unfair. I do not quite see how it is going to be remedied in connection with this section, but possibly a way might be found.

In conclusion, I should like to apologise to the House for taking up so much time. I do not generally speak so long on Bills of this kind, but this, I believe, is a Bill which will require very careful consideration here. It will not, in my view, achieve what the Government have in mind. It may create a great deal of unpleasantness and bad feeling, and it is our duty here —I do not suggest to reject the Bill, but to examine it very carefully. I would like to say that my personal point of view is that the lowest possible price is not necessarily a blessing. This ideal of low prices can be carried too far. It is very well known that there is very keen competition in the matter of rates of wages paid, the service given, etc. Take, for example, a pair of boys' or men's boots or shoes. You can fix a price for these, and the manufacturer can produce them to look exactly the same as the higher priced article—he can take a certain amount of leather out of the insole; he can change the lining—but it may be, I will not say utterly worthless, but greatly inferior because he brought the price down by sixpence. The ideal of the trader, to my mind, is to give as good value as he can to the public, to pay proper wages, and to have reasonable hours of work, and not unreasonable hours from early morning to late at night, for the purpose of ekeing out a livelihood. He wants to give service and, if something goes wrong, to put it right at his own expense to please his customer, and he wants, if possible, to sell goods which he knows have not been reduced in value in order to cut the price.

I do not think that this cry for the lowest price is necessarily a good thing for the community. There are traders in this country and in every country who buy up "seconds" and "jobs" and various goods of that kind—I am not criticising them; there is a market for these goods—but there is no guarantee. They can sell goods possibly at a lower price than others who give a guarantee or, at any rate, who put an article right if it comes back with a fault to try to keep the standard of value. They are two different classes of trade and, so long as people know what they are doing, I do not quarrel with it, but, while I think that a careful investigation would undoubtedly lead to lower prices in these commodities, you will not get any real benefit by attacking here and there, on the complaint of some busybody, a trader in Athlone or a trader in Cork or in Dublin, I think that is simply petty and worthless. The problem of prices, if it is to be dealt with, must be tackled seriously and not by trying only one simple remedy, one worthless remedy of a maximum price, but by the Minister looking into the problem when a real case is made, to see the best method of lowering high prices. I do not believe that this Bill in itself as it stands will do anything to solve the real problem of prices in the Saorstát.

Mr. Bagwell

Before I came here today, before I had an opportunity of hearing what the Minister said, in his introduction of this Bill, and what Senator Douglas has said, both having much greater knowledge of the subject from several points of view than I could ever hope to have—the Minister has the advantage of Government sources of information and Senator Douglas obviously has a greater knowledge of the subject than I or most people in this House have—I was opposed to this Bill, certainly, in principle and almost entirely in detail and I do not think I have altered my opinion at all. I have heard nothing to cause me to change. The Minister, to my amazement, said what was quite the contrary to what I expected, that he did not believe there was very widespread profiteering in the country. To people of my way of thinking it seems extraordinary that, unless there was really widespread and serious profiteering, we should have a Bill before us asking for dictatorial powers like this. I say "dictatorial" advisedly because, although I know that in the Bill you have inspectors who will control prices, you have a commission of a certain number of people and you have also the Minister and a possible final veto by the Oireachtas—it all seems to fit in very well as a system of check—but, as a matter of fact, to anybody who has any knowledge of how things work, the Bill shows in its text that the Minister is in a dictatorial position. I do not believe that in a question of this kind, in view of the enormous experience and vast mass of knowledge necessary to deal wisely with it, it is wise that such wide powers should be in the hands of so few people.

Senator Douglas approves of this Bill in certain instances. He approves of the principle of inquiry into prices which he refers to as rather a concomitant of, and a corrective to the high tariff situation. I agree with very much that he says about that. He knows a great deal more about it than I do; but Senators will notice that Senator Douglas stopped at the particular form of business with which he is personally acquainted. He did not go much outside that. In other words, like a good many other people who know a good deal, he knows how little he knows. Senator Douglas approved of the Bill in so far as it provides for an inquiry into prices. I cannot agree with him because it seems to me that that is to assume that there is always going to be a high-tariffed state of affairs in this country and that you can make a high-tariffed state of affairs a good healthy state of affairs by having sufficient correctives of this kind. That I do not believe at all. I believe it would be disastrous if we were to take that line. I do not myself see how you can improve a high tariffed state of affairs by this investigation.

This Bill contains many novel features but there is one respect in which it is not novel. I think it is reasonable to describe it as a Bill for Government interference with trade and commerce. We have had a good deal of that since I first had the honour of becoming a member of this House. What do I mean by interference with trade and commerce? I mean protection. I believe that the natural laws of supply and demand are very much better than man-made laws introduced ad hoc to deal with every situation. The less these natural laws are interfered with the better, and the more they are interfered with the worse for all concerned. The question is whether Government interference has promoted healthy, vigorous trade and commerce in the past. That is a general question, but it has a bearing on what is before us. Another question is whether this Bill on its merits is likely to achieve what it seeks to achieve and whether it is a good Bill. As regards the general question, I think it is possible that Government interference with trade and commerce may be beneficial but only in very limited circumstances. I think that when the matter at issue is a very simple one and the reactions can be pretty easily estimated, it is possible that considerable good can be done by Government interference. I would say that in this case these conditions do not obtain. This Bill seeks to deal with a vast portion of our national activities and its reactions are almost incalculable. They are not simple; they are very complicated.

The text of the Bill would imply, although what the Minister has said is not quite in line with that, that there were unreasonably high prices, wholesale and retail, being charged in the country. As far as I can make out—of course, like other people who are not in trade in a very big way, I do not know much outside my own immediate sphere except what I read in the newspapers, and that cannot be altogether wrong—the impression I gather is that prices are too low and not too high. Yet we are dealing with a Bill which assumes that prices are too high. It is common knowledge that the prices of very many articles have been increasing in this country for years past. They have increased very much more rapidly recently. Whether these prices are unreasonable in the sense that retail and wholesale traders are making too much profit is a very difficult question to decide. I do not know whether it is so, but I suggest that there is a prima facie reason for believing that these high prices are the result of Government interference, and not a lack of Government interference. They are a direct result of Government interference—I mean, of course, tariffs and protection. Before the present Government came into power the country was well on the road towards becoming a pretty highly-tariffed country, but during the present Government's tenure of office we have got, in addition, an economic war, a war of tariffs with our principal supplier and principal customer. We have gone from bad to worse—tariffs, higher tariffs, very high tariffs, prohibitive tariffs. I am not an academic or unreasoning free trader, although I have been accused directly and by implication of being such in this House. I recognise that you must have some tariffs. You must have some tariffs for revenue purposes and you must have some tariffs to counter the activities of people in other countries which tend to cripple or kill your export trade. I would point out that the second reason did not exist in our case. Even now Great Britain is a low-tariffed country, and we are a high-tariffed country.

There is one feature in this Bill which is entirely novel as far as my recollection goes. It is the first Bill during ten years to champion the consumer. Hitherto our present Government and the previous Government were the champions of the home producer. Now they turn to champion the consumer. We have now got a Bill presumably for the benefit of the consumer. Logically then it might be said that I should support this Bill. Not at all. I do not support the Bill because I consider that from the point of view of legislation to protect and improve the lot of the consumer, the Bill is simply humbug. This is not the way to champion the consumer. It is likely to make the muddle worse in my opinion. It seems to me, however, that there is one feature of the Bill for which there is more to be said than for the rest of it. That is the proposed investigation into prices to be charged by the manufacturer of protected commodities. Senator Douglas has referred to that aspect of it and I agree that there is more to be said for it than for other things in the Bill. As regards the question of prices charged for commodities which are not protected of course the same arguments would not apply.

I can conceive that even in the case of articles like that, if they are sold at a higher price than heretofore—a price which might appear to some people who do not think very much about the matter, as being unreasonable—the action of the retailer in charging that higher price might be reasonable enough. Why? This tariff war has done several things. It has reduced the volume of sale of dutiable articles. People find them so expensive that they simply will not buy them. There is less ready money received. It is well known that more credit has to be given. Why? The customers are very largely people who either farm themselves or have to do with farms, people whose finances are linked up with cattle and other stock. So far from making any profit now these people find that they are making a loss. Yet they must have things they need. They cannot go out of life altogether, but they cannot pay cash for them. They have got to get credit because they have not the money to buy the articles they need in many cases. There you find one form of Government interference with trade and commerce leading to another. I hold that the Government should interfere with trade and commerce as little as possible. I do not believe that one kind of interference is going to correct another. The Minister for Industry and Commerce under the Bill is practically given control I might say, of the entire commercial activities of the country. The articles in the schedule may not constitute one hundred per cent. of the entire business of the country; they are not very far off it. Under Section 3 (b) any other commodity by order of the Executive Council can be scheduled, so, practically speaking, there is no limit. The Minister appoints the commission, he controls the commission, he directs the commission, he pays the commission and he can dismiss the commission. He is practically a dictator—he and the Controller of Prices between them.

There is another matter which has been covered to a slight extent already but I do not think I need apologise for referring to it again. These commissioners to discharge their extraordinarily wide powers should know sufficient about nearly everything to be able to interfere in an intelligent, satisfactory and beneficial manner. They cannot know as much as that. For one reason alone, they are prohibited under the Bill from being persons who are substantially interested in business. How on earth can they know enough about it? Then, they have got no security of tenure, no pensions and what results are to be expected? The expenses of administration might very well be considerable. I was relieved to hear from the Minister that the expenses of administration will not be very large. Of course anyone knows that if you are going to get people who have a real knowledge of business and who are to be of real value, they are likely to be people who would require to be well paid to give their time to activities of this kind. If you are to get really knowledgeable people you will have to pay them. They would have to be extremely patriotic indeed to give up all the time that would be necessary for this work without proper payment. Then you have got the possibility of unfair treatment by the Controller or the commissioners, of all the parties concerned in the Bill—unfair treatment which might quite possibly be unintentional and arise simply from lack of knowledge. You have got in this the possibility of spiteful informing, interested informing. The whole thing tends in my opinion, to promote still further uncertainty and further lack of confidence in trading concerns.

The best way to help the consumer is to remove the high duties and to become a low-tariffed instead of a high-tariffed country. I believe it is almost impossible, even with the best wishes in the world, for anybody who holds my views to amend this Bill so as to make it a really satisfactory measure. It may however be possible to make it less objectionable. I think that Part II would require a great deal of our attention. We might give more security of tenure to the commissioners. There are many other features of the Bill which will be dealt with by other people who have a greater knowledge of these matters than myself. I trust some valuable suggestions will come from them. One suggestion which has been already made by Senator Douglas is I think a most excellent one and is really of great value —the matter of informing the public in regard to affairs about which they should know. That is that there should be a list of the prices which are being charged across Channel for certain goods so that people would know why it is they are paying very much more here in cases like that.

The Minister laid emphasis, once or twice, on what he described as articles of necessity. But when you come to the question as to what is a necessity you cannot confine it to articles of drink, and food and clothing, and things like that. There are other things quite as necessary, for example, razors. The Minister shaves, and I am sure would regard a razor as a necessary of life. He can buy razors. I can buy a razor, but that is no reason why a working man should have to pay a price for a razor that is almost prohibitive. I would like to see this Bill improved and I hope it will be. But I confess I regard it as unworkable and much more likely to do harm than good.

Miss Browne

I wish to say a few words on this question. I have no relation whatever with the business people dealt with in this Bill. I am a farmer and a housekeeper, and would be one of the victims of profiteering if it existed. I agree that the great objection to this Bill is that it is the outcome of the iniquitous tariffs imposed upon the country. There are proofs every day of that. We have to pay increased prices for articles that we buy. All articles that were formerly sold at 6d. now cost 7d. or 8d., and the increase is always put down to the tax. I am not an expert, but I object to Part IV of the Bill principally because it will hit the people I am most familiar with, and those are the shopkeepers in the country towns. I know their position at the present time is most desperate and deplorable. Under this Bill they will be in daily fear of the inspector, and, although in the country towns there is no profiteering whatever in the retail shop, these people will be harassed, and their position will be made harder than it is already. It is difficult to know what is the real reason for the introduction of this Bill. The Minister admits there is no profiteering, still we have this Bill. Is it looking forward to something that may happen?

I shall be accused of political partisanship when I say that no one can help thinking this Bill is a present to the Labour Party for their support of the Government. You cannot get away from that. I object violently to these tariffs, and this Bill is the outcome of them. If the farmers in the country are in the front line trenches in this war the unfortunate shopkeepers are to be ready to go over the top at any time. I will not say anything about the manufacturers because I am not familiar with them. There may be necessity to control prices charged for their stock but that is a matter for experts. I am putting forward my views as a farmer; my ideas do not perhaps reach far. I am in no way connected with business and I am not interested in anybody engaged in it. With regard to the clauses that provide for the inspection of retail shops I say there is no necessity for them and the poor people holding these shops, and at present suffering great hardship, will be harassed still more and I feel it my duty to make a protest against such action.

Mr. Brown

I would like to say a few words about the only prices in this country of which I have any practical knowledge—I mean the retail prices of food. So far as these prices are concerned I am satisfied that this Bill really will not work. I was Chairman of the Tribunal on Prices of which Senator Farren was also a member. We dealt only with retail prices of food including, as food, the well-known, proud product stout, which I think may be described as a food. We sat for eighteen months, examined 395 witnesses, all of whose evidence can be read by anyone who is curious enough to read it, in the library. We made a very elaborate report, and the conclusion that we came to—I think I can state this quite clearly—was that there was no such thing, in this country, as any general intentional profiteering. I would like to read the paragraph of the report dealing with that. It states:—

"We have satisfied ourselves that in certain areas consumers have to pay too high prices for particular articles of food (bread in one town for instance, meat or milk in others) in the sense that, at some stage in the handling, excessive margin of profit is secured. Excessive profit taking is, in some instances a cause of unduly wide margins between the price received by the producer or importer and the price paid by the consumer, though it is not the sole cause."

And we go on in another part of our report to show that it is not only not the sole cause but that it is often one of the main causes of high prices in this country. We were satisfied, I certainly, personally, was satisfied that prices of food in this country were higher through a fault which did exist in certain circumstances and incidents, than there might be. In fact we found that profiteering was not the main cause of the high prices in this country. The main causes, we found, were first multiplicity of shops and second an extended system of credit. We were referred to legislation in Queensland, where they have an anti-profiteering Act on which, to some extent, the Bill before us is founded. We considered that very carefully, and we came to the conclusion that we could not recommend similar legislation in this country. We came to the conclusion in fact that price fixing should be the very last resort, and that every effort for dealing with the problem of prices in this country should be tried before price fixing was tried. May I read what we did suggest as a remedy for the state of affairs existing in this country? We suggested that a permanent price board should be established in this country and that it should consist of five members. The most important member of it should be the permanent chairman of the Department of Statistics, that is, the head of the Statistical Department in our Government. He is the most important person in this country so far as the consideration of price levels is concerned. We think there ought to be one other Government member representing the Ministry of Agriculture, and three independent members.

The functions we suggest as proper to that board are set out on page 6 of the report. I do not intend to read them because they are too long, but shortly they were these: That the main object of the board should not be the fixing of prices at all but should be to investigate the whole average prices and not only the prices of stocks but everything of that kind that would influence prices in this country; that there should be reports published periodically educating the public on the subject of prices, and telling them how they ought to consider whether they were fairly treated on the subject of prices. The first of the minor activities of that board would be hearing any complaints by any particular member of the community who believed that he was not fairly treated as regards prices of certain articles of food, investigating them and reporting to the Minister. If after warning the persons profiteering in that way they did not desist and did not take heed of the report, the Minister was then to deal with the matter either by legislation or otherwise.

To my mind the moral effect of this Bill will be more than its actual effect. The moral effect produced by our tribunal was rather peculiar. When we started on our country expeditious, the first town to which we went reduced the price of meat 2d. in the lb. So, clearly, there must have been too high a price charged to the consumer in that town for meat. We took care, as long as that tribunal was in existence, to inquire from the Civic Guard if prices had gone up again after our departure to what they were before our arrival and we found they had not. I do think the great effect of any legislation such as this Bill will be the moral effect and not the actual working out of the penalties in the schedule.

Now the Prices Commission in the present Bill is entirely different in its composition and functions to the one we advised. That commission, so far as food is concerned, fixes a maximum price. I am satisfied it cannot succeed in fixing maximum prices in any article of food. I have said that there were two main causes of undoubtedly high retail prices of food in this country, the first was the multiplicity of shops, and the second is the prevalence of sale on credit. In my opinion, this Bill will not get rid of either of these causes. There is one shop in this country for every 70 of its citizens, and the result is stated in our report, page 10. It is short and I shall read it for the House.

"We are agreed that there are too many retail shops in the country and that this multiplicity of shops does not create competition or tend to reduce prices. It has, in fact, the contrary effect. Prices are fixed at levels which enable the least efficient shop to live, and it is allowed to live to the advantage of the more efficient shops in the same trade and at the expense of the consuming public. Every shop in excess of the most economic number adds its burden of unnecessary overhead and running expenses to the price of goods consumed. We are also agreed that a substantial reduction in the number of shops, accompanied by supervision of prices by the prices board would enable material reductions in the prices of articles of general consumption to be realised. The only practical means of securing this reduction which occurred to and has been considered by us is the licensing of shops; but the subject is one of such difficulty and complexity that we are not prepared, with the information at our disposal, to make any definite recommendation."

Now, will the fixing of a maximum retail price cure this evil? If the maximum retail price of articles of food is fixed so as to give the really efficient shop only a reasonable profit, whatever that means, the inefficient shop must go out of business.

Mr. Farren

And why not?

Mr. Brown

My late colleague on the Prices Tribunal says "And why not?" Well, the disappearance of the inefficient shop may be a blessing in the end, but it will mean serious unemployment, great suffering and misery, and I very much doubt if any Minister could face these results. Take an instance of the multiplicity of shops. There are in and about the City of Dublin 29 bakeries. Four out of the 29 are extraordinarily efficient. In them there is the highest class of machinery, the highest form of organisation and everything of the very best. The others, some of them, are nearly as efficient, but others of them are very far from being so efficient. There is in the City of Dublin a Master Bakers' Association which fixes the price of bread in this city. Nobody is bound by that price, not even the members of the Association itself, but the price is so fixed that the more inefficient of the 29 bakeries can live, and the result is that the really efficient, which are at the top of the business, are making profits which are simply enormous. I do not say that their profits are unfair, having regard to the system that is adopted, but will the fixing of a maximum price have any effect whatever? It cannot. If you fix a maximum price which will be reasonable and proper for the four or five absolutely efficient bakeries in the city you put the other 20 odd bakeries out of business.

The other cause for unduly high prices in this country is the system of credit. Unfortunately except in the great multiple shops and a few cash concerns—there are one or two that we had evidence of—the greater part of the retail trade in groceries and provisions is carried on on credit. The result is, not improperly at all but quite necessarily, that much higher prices are charged all round than would be necessary if there was only a cash trade. How can you fix maximum prices in circumstances such as these where credit is given to the extent that it is given in this country? If you fix a maximum price at all it must be a maximum price for the credit customer. Otherwise, it will not be a reasonable price for the shopkeeper. If you fix it on that basis it is an unreasonable, a profiteering price in the sense that the man is willing to pay cash, but you cannot compel a shopkeeper to have two prices. It is practically impossible for the shopkeeper to have two prices. It is only because he is paid in cash by the few that he is really able to carry on the credit business that he does with the others. If you fix the maximum price as the cash price, then you will abolish the whole system of credit which would be a practical impossibility in this country. I am, therefore, satisfied that so far as the retail prices of food are concerned this Bill is really, for practical purposes, unworkable.

Mr. Johnson

Senator Bagwell and Senator Miss Browne raised questions about the alleged evil in respect of which this Bill is intended to deal. They seem to concentrate on the allegation, whatever justification there may be for the statement that profiteering takes place, that it is all due to tariffs. Senator Brown quoted from the Report of the Tribunal on Prices, but apparently neither Senator Miss Browne nor Senator Bagwell was aware of the existence of this Report which was prepared and presented to both Houses of the Oireachtas before the régime of high tariffs. I take three items from that Report. I have not had time to look through the rest of it but at the tail-end of each Report there are Conclusions and Recommendations. In respect of fish it is stated:—

We consider that the spread, (38, 22 per cent.) between consumers' and producers' prices of fish in the Dublin area is unduly wide. This unduly wide spread may be partly due to inefficient and wasteful methods of business, but it is also due to excessive profittaking on the part of retailers.

With respect to vegetables, the report states:—

Although we regard our inquiry into the prices of vegetables and fruit as incomplete, we are in the position to say that excessive profit taking exists in Dublin in the sale of vegetables and fruit. In a great measure this is due to a distributive system which is defective and uneconomic in several ways, and we make the following recommendations with a view to the removal of some of its defects.

Dealing with intoxicating drink, that is to say, porter and stout, the report states:—

As regards the ordinary trade in Dublin... we are satisfied that excessive profit taking exists, and has existed for some years.

I might go through the various items that were inquired into, and, in respect of some others of them at least, would find similar remarks made. If it is true, as Senator Miss Browne said, that there is no such thing as profiteering now, then if she wishes logic to prevail she will have at least to consider that the credit for the removal of this excessive profit taking is due to tariffs. I wonder would the Senator agree to that proposition?

Miss Browne

Certainly not.

Mr. Johnson

I am inclined to think that what was true then is just as true now, but if it is so the case must be made against Senator Brown and his tribunal because, even though they were not, as has been suggested, well-qualified by long experience in a particular business, they were still able to make an effective examination and investigation, and their valuable report was the result.

I am not at all satisfied with this Bill. I think it will have the effect, when the machinery is set up, of doing something in the way of preventing excessive profit takers from continuously seeking excessive profits, but I am not by any means enthusiastic. I am one of those, too, who have never been able quite to conform to the practice of denouncing profiteering, because I have not been able to understand what is meant. I think the term, before it became popular, was used to denote that section of the community which lived for profits and which depended on profits for their livelihood and whose interest was in maintaining profits——

Mr. Douglas

Is there any section of the community that does not ultimately?

Mr. Johnson

Yes. Profits were defined as that portion of remuneration which was not a payment for services, but simply the margin between what was paid for an article and what could be got from the consumer over and above what was the legitimate payment for services rendered, and that large section of the community which lives and moves with the idea of promoting the interests of that particular profiteering community were called profiteers. It was a useful word and it became popular and indefinite. I am afraid that the Bill is, in the main, based on the assumption that there will be unduly high prices general over a particular area, and that is the end mainly aimed at, and may be met by this Bill.

Senator Douglas, in a very valuable and detailed criticism of the Bill, drew attention to the difficulty of defining a reasonable price. He suggested that one of the difficulties is the fact that there were some prices which might be reasonable as cash prices, and other prices which might be considered reasonable as credit prices. I have the feeling that if there is going to be an excessive or a higher price charged for an article sold on credit, the seller ought to charge for credit and not for the article. It ought to be made quite clear what proportion of the price is for credit as distinct from the price that is charged for the article itself. The cash price should be considered the reasonable price for the article, and if it seems fit to the seller to charge a higher price because credit is being given, let him charge for credit, so that the consumer will know what he is paying for.

I feel that the machinery of the Bill is going to be cumbersome, difficult and unsatisfactory in respect to what I think is perhaps a more acute evil than this general excessive price that is alleged. Senator Douglas put his finger on the section of the Bill that deals with the individual complaints and he denounced that high and low. I have the feeling that it is the individual complainant that has to be protected; that the evil that is most acute is where the shopkeeper, in respect to individual items, when he sees a chance, will put a price on to a particular customer—slip it in by the way—or, if a customer is not a hard bargainer, who takes the article at the price that is named, and finds later that he has been salted. That is the evil which requires attention.

I am afraid the machinery of the Bill will not be very satisfactory in dealing with it. I think the most effective way of treating that kind of profiteering— and I use the word in that respect—is that after a second or perhaps a third investigation, which has proved the seller to have been guilty of charging excessive prices to the individual customer in respect of particular articles, that notification should be placed upon his window so that the public would be informed of the fact that this man had been guilty of that practice. The fear of that, I imagine, would be the best deterrent.

There is another point I wish to make. I think it ought to be possible to include in the Bill a section or words which would ensure that when articles are being offered for sale it is the net weight is being sold. It should not be possible for an article to be sold in a package unless it contains the net weight. It may be said that that would come within the Weights and Measures Act. We should make sure that in this Bill, when we speak of prices, we are speaking of the price of an article, the weight of which is clearly known. Senator Douglas raised a point as to what was a "commodity." There may be a difference in dictionary meanings, but I think economists generally agree upon a definition. I would like the definition to be wide enough to include the price of house room rents so that they might be brought within the purview of the Prices Commission. I am not quite sure whether there are not other accommodations that might be included in what the economists call "commodities."

Mr. Douglas

Would the maximum price do in that respect?

Mr. Johnson

In regard to rent. There are certain classes of houses on which there are restrictions on rents, but there is a large proportion of houses not protected in that respect. A question arises as to whether the definition of "food" in this Bill covers what it does under certain other Acts, for instance drink. If it is not clear I think it should be made clear that just as the tribunal in 1927 inquired into the price of drink as well as food, so it should be within the competence, without any further act on the part of the Executive, for the commission to take under its wing an examination of the price of drink. I am not at all enamoured of the machinery of the Bill, and the general plan, but, with certain limitations it does follow the recommendations of the Prices Tribunal. While the exact course recommended by the tribunal has not been adopted, it was contemplated in the report that there would be a price-fixing authority required at some point. The only question was one of precedence, whether some other method of procedure should not precede the setting up of the price-fixing authority. In the report it was stated that "... price fixing by the Government must be regarded as a last resort." Even if adopted a permanent advisory body would be required. They drew attention to the fact that there had been legislation in Queensland and they said:—

The cost of living in Queensland from the date of the Act has been consistently lower than in any other State of the Commonwealth, in spite of the fact that it was higher previous to the passing of the Act.

The Queensland legislation provided that:—

The commissioner may fix and declare:—

(a) The maximum price at which any commodity may be sold;

(b) Different maximum prices according to differences in quality or description or in the quantity sold...

(d) Maximum prices on a sliding scale;

Maximum prices run through the Queensland legislation, to which the commission specifically drew attention, and showed that such legislation had been satisfactory. I cannot quite reconcile the allegation that fixing a maximum price is impossible with the conclusions in that paragraph in the report. I have no doubt there will be a good deal of discussion on this Bill in Committee, which, I hope, will improve and strengthen it. The Bill is worthy of support on the Second Reading and I hope the House will agree to that.

Mr. O'Hanlon

No very positive views have been expressed on this Bill one way or the other, except by Senator Miss Browne, who is usually very positive. I am sure the Minister feels rather surprised to hear the measure, I might say damned with faint praise and rather praised with faint damns. We do not seem to have two definite views upon it. Most of the matters on which I wished to express an opinion have been already dealt with. I would like, however, to submit a few points for the consideration of the Minister. One of the things I cannot understand is, what is the justification for introducing this Bill, even taking the reasons which the Minister has put before the House? Ordinarily it might be accepted as a justification for the introduction of such a measure that there was excessive profiteering in this country. The Minister says there is not excessive profiteering. We say there is not any great or undue profiteering, yet we have this measure introduced at the present time. I cannot understand why it is introduced. I cannot understand why such a measure should be introduced at such an inopportune time. The time could not be more inopportune for such a Bill. Traders are unduly harassed at present. They are afflicted by rather higher overhead charges, higher taxes, less profits and diminishing sales. They find it impossible to collect accounts. Competition is keener, and there is a new element of competition in travelling shops. The position of traders is exceedingly precarious. Why the Government should introduce a measure of this character at this peculiar time strikes me as rather strange. Perhaps there are some reasons that the Minister could advance. I would like to hear the Minister dealing with that aspect of the matter.

In regard to the Minister's statement, I noticed that he held out no great hope of what advantages it would confer. He led me to believe that it was intended, not so much as a corrective of excessive profiteering, as to prevent the charging of unduly high prices for commodities in the future. The Minister's statement was fair, unpretentious and modest, and I accept it in that respect. He held that the Bill confers certain advantages on the public. Senator Brown summed up that by saying that the moral effect of the Bill was the thing we should look to; that there was a deterrent there against excessive charges on the part of the shopkeepers and the trading community. I am glad to see that the Minister admits that. Might I ask the Minister to look into one or two other things? There is at present a commission sitting dealing with the question of the licensing of shops. Senator Brown stated that the tribunal on Prices recommended that there should be an inquiry into that question. Such a commission has been sitting and its recommendations should be in hands reasonably soon. The tribunal which sat on the question of food prices stated in their report that one of the main causes for profiteering was the multiplicity of shops. The commission is now going into the question of the multiplicity of shops, but before we have a report from a tribunal, which deals with what we must regard as the main cause of profiteering, the Government introduces this measure. I think that is rather an inversion of the way in which this question should be tackled. The Government may have already considered the report of that tribunal, and on the basis of that report may have decided what steps they should take. If one of the main causes of profiteering, as accepted by those who have studied the question, is the multiplicity of shops, surely it would be wiser if the Government had waited a little longer and considered the report of the commission they have set up. As Senator Douglas stated, this is a measure which will require very close consideration on the Committee Stage. I am sure the House will give it such consideration. Frankly, there is something to be said for the Bill. The one thing in doubt is whether the Bill can be made ineffective. Certainly it is likely to be effective on the very modest pretensions of the Minister. He did not try to delude the House, but made a very fair attempt to do so.

Mr. Farren

In connection with this measure I would like to say that anyone who suggested that this is a sop for the Labour Party is labouring under a delusion. The Labour Party do not want any sops and, if they did, they would not consider this a sop worth taking. Senator Brown, who was chairman of the Commission on Prices, stated that that Commission came definitely to the conclusion, after hearing all the evidence that the general public as a whole were mainly responsible for high prices, and that the multiplicity of shops was also to a large extent responsible. Senator O'Hanlon is not correct when he states that the main recommendation of the Tribunal on Prices was that an inquiry should be held into the question of licensing shops. The main recommendation of the Commission on Prices was to set up a board to control prices. I was a member of the commission, and also of a previous commission dealing with prices. We made that recommendation because of evidence which showed that it was absolutely essential, in the interests of the purchasing public, that there should be a Government Department which from time to time, would take notice of world prices, the price of raw materials, and everything else, and that that authority should decide what the public should pay for articles for consumption. It came to the notice of the Tribunal on Prices while it was sitting that the world price of flour had little or no connection with the price paid for the loaf. Anyone who knows anything about the production of bread knows that the cost of the flour is the major cost in the production of the loaf; that wages and other things count for practically nothing. The cost of the flour is the real difficulty in deciding what the price of the loaf will be. We found that the world price of flour was not reflected in the price of the loaf in this country, but there are various reasons for that state of affairs. The highly efficient and well organised producers of bread could buy flour at that price when the market was high, owing to being able to buy in large quantities, but the inefficiency, or, let me say, the lack of means of the poorer manufacturer would not allow him to buy sufficient stocks when flour would be at a low price. He could only buy from the manufacturers and take it at whatever price he could get, with the result that, when the Minister investigated the cost of bread, he would find that the cost was fixed at a price that would show a profit to the most inefficient of the makers. I do not think that that is fair to the community. I do not think that that is right. I do not think that the purchasing public should be made to pay for the inefficiency of anybody. I think that a fair price should be fixed, allowing for everything, and that the purchasing public should pay whatever is fixed as a fair price.

On the question of the licensing of shops, that is a question that has been referred to by the present Government, and I have nothing whatever to say on that, except with regard to the multiplicity of shops. To a very large extent these shops deal with the one commodity. You have in many cities —particularly in the City of Dublin— in one street, of which I know, as many as thirty to forty shops, catering for the one commodity—where that could be dealt with by one shop. Taking all things into consideration, you must admit that the price is not too high for a particular article when you come to examine the overhead. It all comes down to this: whether you are going to give a bounty to continue that principle or not. It also comes down to this question—the question of credit: as to who will be responsible for the enhanced prices of goods on credit over goods for cash.

Somebody, I think it was Senator Douglas, said that you could not ask a tailor to make a suit on credit and insist that the suit should not cost more than for cash.

Mr. Douglas

I did not say that. I said that under this Bill a maximum price might be fixed for the worst conditions.

Mr. Farren

That may be so, but already for certain commodities—particularly furniture—there seems to be tremendous competition to get people to take furniture on the credit or instalment system. These inducements are held out to people all the time. If it applies in the case of furniture, it should also apply in the case of tailors. I think that no Government should allow that to take place. The whole problem of fixing prices is one that requires very careful consideration. Personally, I am in favour of the limitation of the number of shops. I am in favour of having some authority, such as is proposed in the present Bill, being in charge of the control of prices and of the number of shops. I think that somebody should be in charge and responsible for the carrying out of this principle—somebody who will see that there is a deterrent to people charging unfair prices. I do know that it is the poorest of the poor who have to pay the very highest price for the worst class of article. I know that that is so—particularly in a city like this, where there is so much casual employment and where they have to buy in small quantities. The housewife in very many cases, is obliged to buy goods on credit, and, in very many cases, that housewife starts on Monday morning, usually, with no ready cash. She is not a free agent. She has to buy in the cheapest market and has to pay the dearest price. The price she is compelled to pay is the highest price, no matter what may have happened during the course of the month. There is no extended credit in her case.

I hold that there ought to be some legislation to protect that type of people, who are the unfortunate victims of the circumstances in which they live. If that woman's husband was in regular employment, and could buy, from day to day, everything would be all right. But everybody knows that they are compelled to get their goods on credit, and in very many cases they have to pay the highest price for the worst possible class of food. I think that the Government were wise in introducing this Control Bill. They did not go as far as I thought they should have gone, but I must support the Bill.

Mr. O'Doherty

I think that the present Bill means that the Executive Council are alive to the needs of the consumer. I do not propose to follow Senator Bagwell or Senator Miss Browne in their reasons for opposing the Bill. It seems to me that they typify a mind that is opposed to all measures of this kind. It is the type of mind that, when tariffs are introduced for the purpose of protecting the farmers, or other sections of the community, voices the opinion that such tariffs would not produce the results supposed to be obtained, and if, by chance they did produce such results, in the shape of the starting of an industry for which they were intended, that it would be done at the expense of the country. The Government, in introducing the past tariffs, tried to allay any honest feeling in the minds of people who thought that this would mean an increase in prices, by stating that if they found that tariffs operated in that direction, they would take steps to secure that the consumer would not be victimised. This Bill, I admit, is a first step in that direction. Whether there is profiteering, whether there will be excessive charging or not, or whether there is the possibility that unscrupulous manufacturers would take advantage of the situation— having control of the market and having control of prices—in their own interests or not, I think that this Bill is a step towards preventing such a thing happening, but I agree with Senator Brown when he said that the moral effect of this Bill would probably be its major asset. I think that Part III of the Bill would have the greatest effect in that regard, and I would like to know if the Minister, in that part of the Bill, will give us a regular definition of the word "premises"? Section 36 provides that the Minister can, on the failure to comply with the regulation in the manner stated ask for summary proceedings against the person in possession of "premises." What I want to know is: will that include travelling shops around the country? I would like to be satisfied that Section 36 will apply not only to the ordinary shops but to these travelling shops. The people in the villages have their own shops and have to compete with these travelling shops. I think that the Seanad would be well advised to give this Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Lemass (Minister for Industry and Commerce)

I gather that the main criticism to this Bill is against the sections which give power to fix a maximum price in certain circumstances. The greater part of the speeches delivered by Senators Douglas, Brown and Bagwell were directed to that aspect of the Bill. It seems to me that they spoke under a misunderstanding. Senator Brown said that the fixing of a maximum price should be a power only to be taken in the last resort. I and the Executive Council have come to that conclusion, also, and that is the principle embodied in this Bill. The principle embodied in the Bill is that such action should be taken only in the last resort, where every other means had been attempted, and proved to be inoperative. The proposal in this Bill is that when an allegation is received as to the general level of prices being too high in a particular area with regard to a particular commodity, the commission carries out an investigation. In regard to that investigation, the commission, having contact with the persons concerned, hears their evidence and discusses with them in great detail everything that could be taken as an explanation or an excuse for the high prices charged. The people concerned give their opinion. When they have completed their investigation they give to the persons concerned—if they have come to that conclusion—their decision that the price level is too high, stating that fact and indicating what in their opinion should be the proper price to be charged. If, as a result of their negotiations with the parties interested, the commission decide that the prices charged are too high or not too high, they send their report to the Minister. In that report they are required to give their opinion as to the causes leading up to these prices being unreasonably high, if they have come to that conclusion, or on the question of excessive profit-taking. The charging of these prices may not be a case of excessive profit taking, but the commission give their opinion as to whether a maximum price should be fixed or not. The intention, I take it, is that every possible avenue should be explored before any business should be submitted to this question of a maximum price. I agree with Senator Douglas that it is almost impossible to fix a maximum price. Senator Douglas says, in regard to the difficulties which would be encountered in the clothing trade, that it would be practically impossible to arrange a maximum price. I agree with that statement, but I hold that these things are matters for investigation.

Personally, I cannot see how it could be done and I do not think the commission will be foolish enough to attempt it. In respect of other commodities, I do not hold the same opinion. I think that Senator Brown contradicted himself when he said that, in the first place, it was not possible to fix a maximum price for articles of food, and, in the second place, that the price of articles of food was being fixed, not by a commission established by the Government, but by the Master Bakers' Association. They are able to fix the price and I do not see why the commission to be established by this Bill could not be competent enough to do it also. We know that, in relation to quite a number of articles of food, prices are, in fact, fixed. We had a conference in my Department last week with milk suppliers in the City of Dublin and certain agreements were arrived at which meant, in effect, that the prices to be paid for milk were fixed by agreement between the parties concerned over a period. In that case, the matter was dealt with under the auspices of the Department of Industry and Commerce. In future, it will be under the auspices of the Commission on Prices, if any question in relation to the price of milk should arise.

We know, however, that, in relation to the price of milk, any complaint that may be publicly voiced is not directed against the possibility of those supplying the milk taking excessive profits so much as to the fact that their methods of distribution are so wasteful that, in fact, it is not possible for them to give the consumers the benefit of the price that might be available if other methods of distribution were in operation. I do not think the circumstances will arise, except rarely and in glaring cases, in which the commission will recommend to the Minister for Industry and Commerce that a maximum price should be fixed, and in which the Minister would deem it desirable to accept that recommendation. The main intention is to ensure that, by publicity, the desired aim will be achieved. The commission will, except where evidence has been given in confidence, sit in public and the fact that the price charged for a particular commodity is under investigation will be known. The commission may take such steps as it considers desirable or necessary, after concluding this investigation, to get the people concerned voluntarily to redress any position that they think has to be redressed, and, if they cannot succeed in that way, they will consider the various means by which a reduced price might be achieved and will embody these various methods in their report to the Minister. They may, and probably will, in the majority of cases, make no recommendation in favour of fixing a maximum price and will probably say that it could not be done in any case because the difficulties which would be experienced in attempting to formulate definitions and in dealing with the different qualities of the same article that are available would be too great.

I do not think there can be any objection to the investigation of prices where complaint is general that the level is too high or in respect of protected commodities. The main intention of this Bill is to ensure that such an investigation will take place and that the body making the investigation will be permanent and will not require a separate enactment every time such an investigation is desired. Senator Brown referred to the fact that the very existence of the Tribunal on Prices in 1925 and 1926 had a beneficial effect and that the knowledge that the tribunal was visiting a certain town, for the purpose of carrying out an investigation there, produced a reduction in the price of meat. I anticipate precisely the same result from the establishment of this commission. When the Tribunal on Prices ceased to exist, when its report was published, the moral effect, although it probably existed for some time, gradually disappeared, and I have no doubt that if the tribunal were reconstituted now and were to carry out an investigation again, it would find at least as many causes for comment in its report as it found when it existed. This commission, however, will be a permanent body and its moral effect will be permanent. It will be able to come in without any delay to investigate the price charged for any commodity or in any area. The anticipation is that the necessity for carrying out such investigation will itself be diminished by its establishment and that the commission will be able to give quite a large part of its time to what might be regarded, from one aspect, as its most important work—the continuous investigation of manufacturers' prices for protected commodities.

I have been quoted as saying that profiteering is not taking place. I do not think I said that. I did say that I have no evidence that profiteering is taking place but I commented on the fact that I had no machinery for getting the evidence. It is true that we have received what probably would be regarded as a large number of complaints that an individual person was charged a price for butter, bread or bacon, in some particular town, which was in excess of the price prevailing elsewhere, or which that person considered to be reasonable, and I mentioned that certain investigations which were carried out unofficially, or semi-officially, following on the complaints, showed them to have been justified. No doubt, there are always circumstances which operate to make it easier for one establishment to charge lower prices than are generally charged in establishments of the same nature, but there can be no justification for certain circumstances which were brought to my notice.

I received one complaint which proved to be justified, that the manager of the local creamery in a town in Kerry decided to investigate the prices being charged for butter produced in that creamery in the town in which the creamery was situated. He gave the son of some person living near the creamery 1s. 4d., which was the fixed price for the butter produced, at the time, and sent him round to all the people who were selling butter in the town. He was asked 1s. 6d. in two houses, 1s. 5d. in three houses, and, in only one house, could he get it at 1s. 4d. It was quite obvious that the shopkeepers in that particular instance were prepared to take a chance of getting a higher price if the person intending to make the sale was prepared to give it. Other circumstances like that were adverted to in some of the complaints received and, as I said, on investigation there seemed to be good ground for them.

It is intended that any complaints of that kind shall be investigated, if the Controller considers that they are genuine complaints and worth investigation. What does that mean? The Controller will get a number of frivolous complaints and will rule these out. He will get a number of complaints which, on the face of them, will not be worth investigation, because the price which will be alleged in the complaint to have been too high will, in the knowledge of the Controller, be the actual prevailing price in most parts of the country. The Controller must be considered as a man who will have accumulated in his office, and, at his disposal, a very large amount of information as to the price prevailing for all articles likely to be affected by this Bill, and he will have a fair idea of what would be a reasonable price for any article in any town at any time. If the complaint is of a nature which, on the face of it, is not likely to indicate that an unreasonable price was charged, the Controller will ignore the complaint. He may get, and I think it was Senator Douglas who adverted to the danger of his getting complaints which are dishonest—complaints definitely lodged by persons for the purpose of damaging particular shopkeepers. We have endeavoured to provide against that in the Bill to the extent to which it is possible to do so. If a complaint is one which specifically states that the shopkeeper in question had charged prices in excess of the general level of prices, then the person making the complaint is liable to a fine of £10, as Senator Douglas mentioned, because of his misstatement. If, on the other hand, he cannot, in fact, give a figure which would indicate that an unreasonable price had been charged, no investigation would follow.

It is quite correct that the best way of securing that unreasonable prices will not be charged for any commodity is to have effective competition in the sale of that commodity. I take it that that is what Senator Douglas meant when he adverted to the possibility of redressing any situation that might arise by reducing the tariff. By reducing the tariff, more competition would be allowed and we would be getting to the desired position.

In respect of most of the articles that are offered for sale, competition plays freely, and there is no reason to believe that it will not be quite sufficient by itself to rectify any organised attempt at profiteering on behalf of a section of traders, but, in this country, the number of producing units must necessarily be small in any industry we succeed in establishing here, and, consequently, the possibility of a trade organisation regulating the price charged for the articles produced by it is much greater than it would be in some other country of larger size where the number of producing units would be much greater. I have had no evidence that this is taking place. In fact, I have had very few complaints that any such attempt at exploiting the market behind the tariff barrier is occurring. Senator Bagwell mentioned that it is common knowledge that the prices of articles have been increasing in recent years and particularly since the recent tariffs were imposed. That may be common knowledge in some quarters but I must say that it has not reached me. The information available in the Department indicates that quite the contrary is taking place and that there has been a very steady fall in prices in recent years and particularly during the past six months.

Of course, evidence of that in concrete form cannot be available, but we can point to the cost of living index figure which has shown a very considerable fall and, particularly, during the past six months, but the articles taken into account in compiling that figure cover only a small range of those to which protection has been applied. The tariffs which have been imposed may, in some cases, have caused an increase in prices compared with those prevailing heretofore, but, in the majority of cases, this has not happened, and we must also bear in mind that the prices which operated here before the tariffs were imposed were, in many cases, dumped prices. That is one factor I would like Senator Douglas to keep in mind when he comes to frame his suggestion that the report of the commission on prices charged for any protected commodity should contain information as to the price at which that commodity would have been available if the tariff had not been imposed. I think he knows, and most Senators will know, that it is not at all unusual for industrial concerns with a secured position in the home market to sell abroad their products at a price lower than those they are able to get at home and in respect of many articles we got the benefit of that position here. No doubt, a comparison between the prices prevailing in this country and in other countries for the same commodity, would be of value, but, merely taking into account the prices at which other countries were prepared to sell their commodities to us, would perhaps be entirely misleading. There is, as I have often said before, no industrial product that we could not buy cheaper from some part of the world than we could make it ourselves. But that is not an argument against making it for ourselves, but possibly some misunderstanding might be created if figures were published in a report which would have no relation to the circumstances existing here and might give entirely false information as to the efficiency of an Irish industry.

There is no definition of a reasonable price. I could not for myself attempt to define it. The commission will have to take into account all the circumstances relating to the price charged for any commodity, and take the responsibility of deciding what is a reasonable price for that commodity, if the circumstances should necessitate such a decision. The commission will presumably be composed of reasonable people and they will not certainly recommend the taking of any strong action except the circumstances are sufficiently grave to justify it and that they are convinced that the action they recommend is required. Senator Douglas, I think, contradicted himself somewhat when he referred to the method of appointment of the members of the commission. At one stage he suggested that there should be a panel of members from which the Minister would make a selection when any particular industry was under review. At another stage he objected to having the Minister exercising a discretion as to the membership of the commission at all.

Mr. Douglas

No. I do not want to interrupt the Minister, but what I said was that I objected to having him there at the pleasure of the Minister, which meant that the Minister could take him away in the middle of an inquiry.

Mr. Lemass

It is not intended, of course, that the personnel of the commission should be liable to sudden change of that kind. It is undoubtedly true that the Minister may do it. That is not an innovation in this Bill. I think that both this House and the Dáil have passed Bills establishing boards and commissions in regard to which the Minister had precisely the same function. I would refer the Senator to the Mines and Minerals Bill. The functions of the Minister there are not very dissimilar to the functions which he has in this Bill. In some respects it may be considered desirable that the members of the board should be liable to sudden removal. The members of the commission, therefore, hold office at the pleasure of the Minister. The position is, however, that this is a board which must be selected in relation to the needs of the time.

I referred to the fact that we hope to get a voluntary board but that we considered that there might be a difficulty in that respect, that people who would have special qualifications for acting on such a board would be people who, because of these very qualifications, might not be available to do so, unless they could be compensated for the loss of time involved. Conceivably we could get people who would act for limited periods or who would agree to give their services and who might find subsequently that their business arrangements would necessitate their withdrawal. If we appoint people for a definite limited time, we would have to take power to remove them for cause stated or something of that kind but I do not think any additional safeguard is needed. The Minister is of course responsible for his actions to the Dáil and Seanad and is liable to be called on to account for anything such as the removal of a commissioner. The discretion which is given enables him to ensure that no difficulty will arise which will prevent the commission functioning efficiently at all times. As regards the suggestion that there should be a panel of members, that in effect does exist. It is proposed in the Bill that the Minister shall have power to add to the commission for the purposes of any investigation such members, other than the ordinary members, who would have some special knowledge or qualification which would assist the commission in that investigation.

The possibility of a price-fixing order acting unfairly is of course something which the commission would have to take into account before recommending it and the Minister would have to consider it very carefully before making it. I have already stated that the cases in which a price-fixing order will be made will be very limited indeed. And consequently the amount of attention which has been focussed in this discussion on that part of the Bill is disproportionate. The commission would have to bear in mind the possibility adverted to by Senator Douglas that subsequent to the making of a price-fixing order, there might be a justifiable increase in the general level of prices of that commodity. It is proposed that the order may be revoked by the Minister at any time and must in any case be made to operate for a definite time. The duration of the order must be stated in the order when made.

Mr. Douglas

That might be anything from a week to a century.

Mr. Lemass

Quite so, but the power of revocation is there in any event, if circumstances should arise to justify its immediate revocation. On Part IV of the Bill conflicting opinions have been expressed. There is always the possibility that busybodies and petty informers will avail of the Act to annoy traders. I do not think it would be possible to pass legislation to eliminate people of that kind, but I am convinced of the justice of providing machinery for a person who thinks he has been salted in the price charged for some particular commodity, to have his grievance investigated. In any case I think that the existence of the Controller with the powers proposed to be conferred on him, will act as a great deterrent in cases where shopkeepers do attempt — and I think some shopkeepers will attempt in certain circumstances—to get away with a price much higher than that which would be ordinarily considered reasonable.

On the matter of the publication of price lists, the intention is that the commission would not order the proprietor of a drapery or the proprietor of a grocery store to display a list of the prices that he would charge for every article, but whenever occasion arises, that is where the price of an article is not liable to fluctuate from day to day, a price-fixing order may be made in respect of that one commodity. It is a matter which the commission would have to investigate carefully beforehand and in which the Minister would act on the recommendation of the commission. Fairly strong representations were made from various quarters that traders should be required to mark the price of the goods they sold in plain figures. I saw, and I think most Senators will see, a strong objection to that course in view of the credit system which operates over a large part of the country. In certain cases, however, it might be necessary and even desirable to do it.

This Bill is not intended as a corrective for high tariffs. It is intended to ensure that any reasonable suspicions, which may exist in the public mind, will be removed as a result of its operation and that any dangers which may be created by our special circumstances here can be dealt with. If the only justification for this Bill were the idea that some corrective was necessary for high tariffs it would not have been introduced. As I have said, we have much less evidence and a very much smaller number of complaints that manufacturers' prices for protected commodities are unreasonably high than we have that the prices for articles such as are not protected at all, articles of common consumption, like those investigated by the Food Prices Tribunal of 1926, are unduly high.

I for one am not fully convinced that all that has been said about the multiplicity of shops in the country is justified. It is rather a dangerous thing to base an argument of this kind on the facts that have been mentioned here. It is quite a simple thing to take the number of shops in the country, divide it into the population of the country. get the figure seventy and say that we have a shop for every seventy people and that that is a much higher proportion than exists in any other country in Europe. The circumstances here are not to be compared with any other country in Europe. We have a much more scattered population. Our people are more widely spread over the country. Consequently we must have, if there is to be any reasonable system of distribution, a much smaller population per shop, than exists elsewhere. It may be that the elimination of a number of the shops would be no harm but it has yet to be demonstrated that it would be any good. We all like efficiency certainly. We all like to speak about efficiency but in our circumstances too much efficiency might be a very bad thing. We could do most of the work of all kinds we are doing in the country with a much smaller population if we had more efficient and up-to-date devices but our inefficiency in some respects is keeping a large portion of the population alive at the moment. We must not lose sight of that fact when we decide on eliminating a number of shopkeepers, farmers or anyone else.

The question of house rents is one of course which will have to arise for consideration. We have a recommendation from the commission which was established some time ago in respect of the machinery that might be established for the purpose of determining and fixing fair rents in certain circumstances. I do not think that the question of rent control ought to be mixed up with the question of the general level of commodity prices. The question of the machinery or the methods that might be adopted for the purpose of ensuring that unreasonable rents should not be charged is under consideration and the Minister for Justice informed the Dáil last week that he would be in a position to make an announcement on what the Government propose to do in that respect before the conclusion of the present session of the Dáil.

It is possibly correct that the machinery in Part IV, the machinery for the investigation of individual complaints will prove cumbersome in practice. I always felt that myself, but it is the best machinery we have been able to devise. I referred when introducing the Bill to the difficulty of getting any effective machinery for dealing with that type of complaint. The machinery that is here will work. It may work slowly and may be cumbersome in operation, but it will certainly go. Whether any other better type of machinery can be devised I do not know. This is the best we have been able to recommend. Some modifications in the sections of that part of the Bill may be devised.

The times indicated there for the hearing and the making of representations and that sort of thing are in the opinion of some people quite long, and even too long. I would prefer to err upon the side of leniency and that is why the Bill is as it stands. These are matters that can be discussed on Committee Stage.

A Weights and Measures Bill is on the stocks. It is practically ready for introduction, and its appearance will depend, almost entirely, upon the Parliamentary programme. That Bill will be based almost altogether on the recommendation of the Food Prices Tribunal. Senator O'Hanlon inquired further as to the justification for the introduction of this measure and he, also, quoted me as saying that there was no evidence of profiteering.

Mr. O'Hanlon

Of undue profiteering.

Mr. Lemass

Of undue profiteering. It is my personal opinion that undue profiteering is not taking place. I think an individual case does arise from time to time. There is always the danger in that respect of a particular trade combination of producers or sellers arising to protect a particular market, and I think we should have machinery at hand to deal with that without having to wait two or three months in order to come to the Oireachtas and get a Bill passed. We will have the machinery there to do useful work at any time, and to deal with any situation that may arise in respect of excessive prices in the country as a whole or in any part of the country. The Bill was not introduced because of any circumstances now existing. The determination to introduce it arose long before the General Election. It is, in my opinion, a step that should be taken before, and certainly must be taken after, a protective policy is decided upon. I think, at any time, there should be in existence machinery to investigate continuously the prices charged for food, for articles of clothing and for housing materials— those articles that might be regarded as the necessaries of life. I think there should be in existence some court where evidence of the individual consumer and complaints that in his opinion he was charged an excessive price for some commodity, should be investigated and representations made, if required, affecting the protection policy, coming before the Board to report upon manufacturers' prices.

The Bill was introduced at the end of June or July, but, because of pressure in the Government programme, and the summer adjournment and so on, it has taken this interval to reach the Seanad. The passage of the Bill will I am satisfied not inflict hardship upon anybody. I do not see that anybody can possibly feel that he becomes liable to damage because of the passage of this measure. If a shopkeeper is content with reasonable profit, and prepared to charge the same prices to all customers, and not prices based upon the gullibility of a particular customer, he is not likely, at any time, to be interested in the operation of this Bill. It is shopkeepers, or wholesalers, or manufacturers who are prepared to enter into combinations to exploit restricted markets that need have fear because this measure becomes law. The whole scheme was to ensure that hasty action need not take place. Any investigation of the price levels that the commission undertakes must take place over a considerable period of time, to the knowledge of everybody concerned. In fact everybody concerned will be invited to assist the commission in its investigation and to submit evidence. The action that will follow upon investigation will always, in the first instance, be confined to reports, arguments, persuasions, in order to induce the person charging unduly high prices to reduce them. If argument, persuasion or publicity does not produce the desired effect then the question of some coercive action arises. Even in that case the commission is empowered and expected to investigate all possible types of some action before coming to the Minister for recommendation for a price fixing order. Apart from the individual trader, the machinery in regard to complaints of his customers has only been criticised in the Dáil because of its leniency; that too much consideration is shown to the shopkeeper who is deemed by the inspector to charge excessive prices. I am told that once the inspector has come to the conclusion that an unreasonable and excessive price is charged more expeditious action should follow. But we have decided against that. We are going to propose that if he makes restitution and apologises and promises not to do it again and adjusts his whole question of general level of prices there shall be an ordinary investigation before any action against him is taken. The only condition is that the prices fixed are published in the Press when such a certificate is issued. It is only after all that and if he persists that any question of fine or imprisonment arises. I think the Bill is possibly capable of amendment in some respects on Committee Stage. I do not assert that the Dáil left it in perfect condition, but no representations have been made to me to the contrary by the bodies likely to be affected. The objections of the trade bodies have been met by amendments that have been made in the Bill. In some respects the Bill might be further capable of improvement in Committee and I shall welcome the efforts of the Seanad if such are made to improve it.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 7th December, 1932.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 30 Nov 1932

Control of Prices Bill, 1932—Second Stage.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 30 Nov 1932