Is the Minister likely to be here?
Public Business. - Control of Prices Bill, 1932—Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
In this Act—
the expression "the Minister" means the Minister for Industry and Commerce;
the expression "protected commodity" means a commodity which if imported into Saorstát Eireann would on importation be liable to a customs duty or a commodity the importation of which into Saorstát Eireann is prohibited or restricted by law;
the word "specification" when used in relation to any commodity means such detailed particulars of such commodity as may be required for the identification of such commodity for the purpose of ascertaining the value thereof;
the word "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Minister under this Act;
the word "inspector" means a person authorised in writing by the Minister to exercise the powers conferred by this Act on an inspector.
Cathaoirleach
I have not had any information on the matter.
The Minister is engaged at the moment but he will be here as soon as possible.
Cathaoirleach
Will you argue your amendment or not, Senator Johnson?
I suppose I shall have to argue it again. I move amendment No. 1:—
Section 2. To add at the end of the section the words:—"the word ‘food' means and includes every article used for food or drink by man and any article which ordinarily enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of human food; and also includes flavouring matters and condiments."
The amendment deals with the definition of the word "food," and I draw attention to the fact that the Schedule says "Every commodity which is used as food, clothing, material for clothing or fuel." That might seem to be inclusive enough but a doubt has arisen as to what is covered by the word "food." Without stretching it to say that linseed cake for cattle might be said to be food and would come within the scope of the Bill, the question does arise as to whether liquor of any kind, intoxicating or non-intoxicating, would be brought within the scope of the Bill under the terms of the Schedule. As I said before, the inquiry, which was conducted by the Committee under the chairmanship of Senator Brown, included food in common use and intoxicating liquor.
Articles of general consumption—and we took drink as one of those.
The fact is, I think, that it is fairly general as an article of consumption. The definition I have put down is taken from the Food and Drugs Act already in operation. I want to be satisfied that the term "food" in the Schedule is necessarily and legally taken to cover a very wide range, or that it should be specifically defined. The definition in the amendment is taken from existing legislation.
Would it be possible to postpone consideration of this measure until the Minister is present? Many of the amendments deal with questions of definition, which are, more or less, at the discretion of the Minister. I understand he is at present engaged on Questions in the Dáil, and that he will not be very long.
Is it Senator Johnson's concern that inquiry might be made into the question of whether there is profiteering in food for cattle? If you are going to have a Bill as wide as this one, it might be important to the community, and to farmers in particular, if that was the case. I do not feel strongly about the amendment, but there will be the greatest difficulty when you come to the definition. Senator Johnson has made his point clear. Naturally his desire is for accuracy and for detail. I can conceive cases where an inquiry into unfair prices for food for cattle would be as important as an inquiry into flavouring matter, or condiments, which come under the Bill.
At this stage I should like, if I might, to raise a point of order concerning certain amendments I sent in proposing to delete two Parts of this Bill, and which do not appear on the Order Paper. I understand that I am not allowed to debate this matter, but I see great difficulty in certain cases in framing amendments to a Bill if the whole of a Part which could stand apart cannot be deleted in Committee. I submit that a precedent was afforded in the Land Act of 1923—on which some members of the Seanad will remember I was rather active—when I was allowed to remove a complete Part of the Bill which could be taken out without affecting other Parts. Otherwise one is driven back on the alternative of removing the Parts piecemeal which surely would be a rather cumbersome process. I suggest that it should be possible where Part of a Bill can stand apart to remove it in toto.
Cathaoirleach
The Senator was informed that the amendments were not in order.
Yes.
Cathaoirleach
The reason for that is that in Committee a Bill must be moved section by section. If I were to allow a Senator to move to delete a whole Part of a Bill, this would involve several sections, which could not therefore be put seriatim as required by the Standing Orders. The Senator is in no way inconvenienced by my ruling, as it is open to him to oppose each section of the Parts to which he objects and, if he wishes, to challenge a division on each.
As the Minister is now in the House perhaps Senator Johnson would like to explain his amendment again.
As I explained earlier, the object of the amendment is to have it made quite clear that the term "food" will include liquor refreshments and any other article which might be dealt with, for instance, salt or pepper. There might be a doubt in the law courts whether salt was "food." I want to make it clear in the Bill that there should be no doubt of that kind. Possibly it would be said that the word "food" in the Schedule would cover anything that could be taken into the mouth and eaten or drunk. I am not quite sure whether the lawyers would agree with that. I have taken the definition in the amendment from the Food and Drugs Act, 1899.
The term "food" would be interpreted to cover any article which could itself be used as food. I would be disinclined to extend the meaning of the term and to bring a much larger range of articles within its scope than is the case at present. The machinery which has been established by the Bill is machinery which has yet to be tried out in practice, and in the beginning it is desirable that the number of articles to which it would apply should be reduced to those regarded as necessities of life in the strict interpretation of that term. Under the Bill there is always power in the Executive Council, by order, to extend the Schedule to include other articles and to bring them within the purview of the Commission. My inclination at the present time is to keep the Schedule as it stands and to confine the interpretation of the term "food" to any article which can by itself be used as food.
Does the Minister propose to put that in the definition?
That is the definition of "food" as it stands. I am told the amendment is not necessary.
For food for human beings?
Yes.
Would whiskey be food?
I think so.
And so would stout.
The Minister answered "I think so" to Senator Wilson. I want to have the matter clear. If he can give me an assurance that the term "food" includes porter, stout, whiskey, lemonade and such like articles I am satisfied. I am afraid, as the Bill stands, that there is a grave doubt, unless the Minister can point to some decision of a court, or something of that kind, which would make it certain that "food" includes drink. The Food and Drugs Act of 1889 says that the expression "food":
"means and includes every article used for food or drink by man, and any article which ordinarily enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of human food; and also includes flavouring matters and condiments, but does not include articles sold or offered for sale as seed potatoes ..."
There you have a standing definition and, as a layman quite unversed in the way courts proceed, I would think that that might easily have an influence on the definition of what is "food." I would like to have the matter cleared up.
When I say that I think whiskey or stout or other drinks of that kind would be determined to be food, I want to safeguard myself against someone getting a declaration in court that they were not. The term "food," I am informed, covers these articles. Of course it is a term the interpretation of which might be altered by some judicial decision at some time. If the Senator is satisfied that the term should not be extended to include more than the articles which could by themselves be used as food, I will make it clear, between this and the next stage of the Bill, that all the articles are in fact covered by it in the definition clause if necessary.
If the Minister inserts, instead of what is there, "any articles that can be used as food," I most certainly agree. There are many forms of drink, and very many of these forms of drink have no food value. Whiskey is one, and brandy is another. They are all very useful as articles of common consumption, but they certainly will not come under the term "food." Milk, I think, has a food value. Why should the term be left for interpretation? I think we should extend the definition and include drink.
It is a matter of getting an interpretation of the word "food." I will undertake to examine the point to see if there is a necessity for having such a definition, and, if necessary, introduce such a definition.
On that understanding I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 2:—
Section 2. To add at the end of the section the words "the word ‘premises' includes any vehicle or stall from which articles are sold retail."
Having got a hint from Senator O'Doherty in the discussion that took place last week, I put down this amendment. I do not know whether the word "premises" would include a vehicle or a travelling shop. It is well that attention should be drawn to the word in order to have some decision as to whether premises should be deemed to include stores in a market place. I would like some satisfaction from the Minister on the point, or otherwise that he would accept the amendment.
My advice is that the amendment is not necessary. I have no objection to accepting it in principle. My information is that it is not necessary, as the term "premises" would include any place.
Is it clear that the term would include a vehicle, and that it is so as far as a stall is concerned?
We found when going around the country on the Food Prices Commission that travelling shops, particularly in Sligo, have become extremely numerous. They are hardly fair competitors with other shops. They bring everything except drink to farmers' houses, and they bring back from the farmers' wives eggs and fowl which they get at a cheaper rate than if these things were sold in a town. It is entirely unfair competition against other shops, and I hope that the Commission which is dealing with the licensing of shops, when it takes up the question of travelling shops, will see that they are put on some reasonable level with other shops.
I am agreeable to accepting the principle of the amendment and I will introduce one on the Report Stage.
Amendment deferred until Report Stage.
I have not put down an amendment to Section 2, but I would ask the Minister to give consideration to the desirability of having a definition of the words "retail" and "wholesale." I do not attempt to define them because I am not an expert in draftsmanship. At the same time, I believe that there is a good deal of confusion conceivable between retail and wholesale prices. Possibly if the Minister considered the matter he might decide to define "retail," and to make it clear that it was a sale direct to the user. As the matter is one of some difficulty I am raising it in order to ask the Minister or his advisers to deal with it. Otherwise I think there will be confusion when the Act is operating.
I will have it looked into.
Section 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Sections 3 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Commission shall consist of five members (in this Act called ordinary members) of whom at least two shall be women and of whom one who may be a woman shall be a person representative of agricultural interests.
(4) Every ordinary member shall hold office during the pleasure of the Minister.
I move amendment 3:—
Section 8, sub-section (2). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) As soon as conveniently may be after the passing of this Act, the Minister shall choose a number of persons, not exceeding twenty-five, to form a panel from which the members of the Commission shall be selected by the Minister from time to time for the purposes of an investigation under this Act.
In considering that sub-section certainly I could not imagine five persons picked, I do not care from what part of the community, who could fill the bill, who could possibly be sufficiently intelligent, who would have enough leisure or who would work hard enough to carry out the duties which the Commission would have to perform under this Bill. One of the five is to represent agricultural interests presumably. He need not know a single thing about ordinary things sold in shops. Two shall be women. Women have a great facility for taking up anything and for working very hard. They are splendid at various things but even the best of women or even the best of men could hardly fill the bill in this case. I honestly believe it would be impossible to get five individuals who could usefully constitute this Commission. My amendment proposes that instead of picking five and leaving the job to them, the Minister should have a panel of twenty-five, that these should be selected in a varied way, and that for each inquiry he could pick five persons out of this twenty-five. I am not quarrelling with the idea of agricultural representations or the selection of two ladies but I suggest that he should at least have a panel of twenty-five people who would profess their willingness to act and then as each inquiry arose the Minister could pick his Commission.
The words of the amendment are:
"As soon as conveniently may be after the passing of this Act, the Minister shall choose a number of persons, not exceeding twenty-five, to form a panel from which the members of the Commission shall be selected by the Minister from time to time for the purposes of an investigation under this Act."
I really think that would be the more workable method. I have no doubt the Minister will tell us what he thinks about it presently but I do think it is nearly impossible to get five human beings to carry out this Act satisfactorily. Of course I know that if the idea of the panel were agreed to, there would have to be considerable verbal alteration in various parts of the Act. I have not put down any other amendment in connection with this proposal until we find whether it is to be accepted. One of the first changes would be in sub-section (2) of this section which states that subject to the provisions of this Act the Commission shall consist of five members. I do not think it needs many words to explain the meaning of my amendment. The idea is to get a body of twenty-five people from whom a Commission can be appointed to investigate each case, instead of trying to get five super-individuals who are able to investigate every case.
Senator Jameson seems to think that the Act as it stands will be unworkable. I suggest that his proposal would be altogether unworkable. I think that in framing his amendment he lost sight of Section 9 of the Bill. Under Section 9 the Minister has power, from time to time, where the necessity of the case demands it, to appoint an additional member of the Commission who shall, for the time being, have all the privileges and powers of a member of the Commission. I think that is a much better arrangement than the suggestion of Senator Jameson. Any one amongst us who has had experience of Commissions and of the duties which they are called upon to perform, knows that this panel business is all humbug. It never works in practice. What is everybody's job is nobody's job. The Minister's proposal is that five people shall be responsible for carrying out certain duties and he provides for meeting the point raised by Senator Jameson in a much more workmanlike way than Senator Jameson suggests. Senator Jameson says that no five people could be expected to know the details of every business. That is all right, but the five people who would constitute the Commission would have to decide certain lines of policy which would not be varied every time the Commission sat. The Minister wisely provides that where expert advice is required dealing with certain specialised industries, he can appoint a person who possesses this special knowledge. During the time such person is on the Commission he has all the powers and privileges of the other five members. I think the Minister's proposal is much more likely to prove effective than the amendment proposed by Senator Jameson.
I support in principle the amendment moved by Senator Jameson. Most of the reasons I gave last week. I do not think, in fact I am quite certain, that Senator Jameson in any way overlooked the provisions of Section 9. The Minister in Section 9 more or less admits that there will be many occasions on which his Commission of five will not be sufficiently satisfactory. It seems to me that if this Bill is going to function at all, the one thing you want is confidence; and if you have a Commission of five people, who can only have a very limited knowledge, dealing with every subject, you are not going to have that confidence in the prices they recommend or the views they put forward as to what is or is not an unreasonable price. If the Minister simply from time to time adds one or two individuals to the Commission, I think I am not wrong in stating that there will be considerable suspicion centred in the public mind, whereas if you had a representative panel of, say, twenty-five, or whatever number is chosen, from all sections of the community, and chosen because of their wide knowledge, it would be comparatively easy to get five to act as a Commission.
There is another reason why this proposal should be accepted. That is, that the Minister has made it quite clear that he does not want a paid Commission. He wants people who are prepared to act in an honorary capacity. I respectfully suggest to him that he will find it almost impossible to get five first-class persons to give practically all their time in an honorary capacity. He will not get people with a wide experience of business. He will not get people who have an actual knowledge of what is happening from year to year and who are able to serve on this Commission without remuneration. If, on the other hand, you have a panel of 25, I think you will find in all classes of community there are people who can give up some time to serve on the Commission in the interests of the community. They would not be willing to act, however, if they are required to act from year to year. For that reason I think you will get a better inquiry if you had a panel. However, I do not think the matter is one of absolute principle and if the Minister has made up his mind to adhere to the proposal in the Bill, we shall not contest it keenly. I cannot agree with Senator Farren that the panel system would prove unworkable. I agree that if five members were selected from the panel on the chance of their turning up to meetings, it might prove unworkable, but this amendment is taken on the assumption that, if necessary, further amendments will be made in the Bill.
I cannot see that this amendment raises any question of principle. In my judgment it is a very wise amendment and I would urge on the Minister to accept it. Senator Farren said that it is advisable to have five members because they will be able to carry out a certain definite policy, running, of course, in grooves. That is a thing which I think is not desirable. If there is one thing desirable in connection with the administration of this Bill it is that it should be subject to the ordinary commonsense of the people. I would urge on the Minister, unless it runs counter altogether to his plans, to accept this amendment allowing for a panel of twenty-five from which he himself can draw. In my opinion it is a workable amendment and it will, I think, contribute to make the measure a success.
When I saw this amendment in the name of Senator Jameson for the first time, I was not at all clear as to the idea behind it. It is quite clear that there are two possible interpretations of it. I gather from him now that the intention is that there should be a panel of twenty-five members from which persons could be drawn from time to time to constitute the Commission for the purpose of carrying out particular investigations. That plan is, of course, if I may say so, based on a misconception of the Bill. We do not contemplate a series of disconnected investigations proceeding for a period of time. The Commission to be set up under the Bill is a permanent Commission, and in fact, a large part of the Bill would be completely unworkable unless we had some permanent body in existence. I would refer Senators to the functions of the Commission under Section 23, sub-section (3), where the Commission has to determine whether it is in the public interest that the general price level in respect of some article should be investigated following the receipt of a complaint or an allegation that an unduly high price had been charged. Similarly, under Section 33, sub-section (2), where an investigation into some individual transaction has been made by an inspector and the Controller of Prices shall issue a certificate, there is an appeal to the Commission. The Commission must be clearly some body which is always in existence, to which an appeal can be made.
Again under Part VI. of the Bill, sub-section (3) of Section 38 requires that the Commission shall, from time to time, as the other business of the Commission permits, select from amongst protective commodities manufactured in Saorstát Eireann, one commodity, for the purpose of making an investigation in relation to the price charged for that commodity.
It seems to me, therefore, that, from that point of view, the idea of a panel of twenty-five members from which individuals would be selected from time to time, runs counter to the entire conception of the Bill. There was another interpretation of the Senator's amendment, and until he introduced it I was not clear that it was not the interpretation he had in mind, namely, that the Minister would nominate a panel of twenty-five members, and from that panel select five members to constitute the Commission. If that was the idea in the Senator's mind, I would have said it was much better to have the whole three million people of the country to select from without restriction. The idea is that five members shall constitute the permanent Commission, that they shall remain in continuous existence, that changes can be made from time to time as members retire, but that the Commission shall be a continuous body and that there shall be added to that Commission as occasion requires—the circumstances associated with a particular investigation or some other circumstance— additional members who will have particular qualifications for the purpose of facilitating the Commission in carrying out certain investigations.
That, in my opinion, is a better and more workable system, seeing that we contemplate not a disconnected but a continuous investigation and review of all the circumstances. The object is continuous investigation in regard to Part IV. of the Bill. I think a continuous, or permanent body, would be more effective in carrying out what I regard as one of the most important functions of the Commission. That function is keeping under observation prices charged for protected commodities, and reporting to the Commission, if necessary, where such is the case, that unduly high prices are being charged, and that steps should be taken to remedy the matter. That is why I am inclined to oppose this amendment. The question as to the terms on which members of the Commission would hold office arises on the next amendment of Senator Brown.
I had in mind that the Minister himself would state whether the complaint was worthy of inquiry. I thought that was one of the things that he was to use his Controller for. Anything sent to the Minister, as something worthy of investigation, would pass, first, through his Controller. The Minister now says it must go first to the Commission. He believes he can get five people properly to carry out these duties. I do not believe he can. I should have thought it easier to get some machinery established to bring the case before the Minister and to appoint a body of 25 persons from whom to draw people to investigate, in the first instance, than it would be to find five people to fill the part. If the Minister tells the House that he is convinced he can get five people to act satisfactorily, for a period of years, and to carry out the duties imposed on them under the Bill I bow to it. It is a matter of opinion but I still hold that he risks the action of this Bill in trying to find five people to carry out this part of it. I think that is taking a great risk and the Minister would be wiser to have a body of twenty-five people and separate inquiry. If, however, the Minister says that that would seriously upset the machinery of the Bill I am not going to press it. If he is able to get five people to discharge these duties, well, then, I shall be delighted.
Before the amendment is withdrawn I venture to point out that it is obviously one of a friendly character. My personal objection to this Bill is that I consider it a very bad piece of legislation. I put forward that view on the debate on Second Reading, but I support this amendment because I believe it is our duty, no matter how we might differ from the principle of the Bill, to do our best to try to improve it before it becomes law. I think that is what this amendment would do. As a rule I am in favour of small commissions, but the Commission of five under this Bill is one of such an extraordinary character that I earnestly believe you will not get people with sufficient knowledge on such a commission. I think it would make the Bill work if you had five times the number of people and thereby five times the amount of knowledge to draw from. I do not believe that such a number would, in any way, diminish the State's responsibility. On the contrary, I think five people, picked out from twenty-five, to deal with that subject would mean a greater sense of responsibility than a commission of a fixed number of five people. You would have greater knowledge among the members to choose from and you would have people acting with a greater sense of responsibility.
I have no very strong opinion on this matter, but I find it hard to reconcile——
I understand the amendment is withdrawn.
Cathaoirleach
No, the House has not yet given permission to withdraw the amendment.
I find it hard to reconcile the views of those who support a panel of 25 for this board, and who supported three gentlemen who were civil servants on the Tariff Commission, and who were supposed to be omniscient in regard to every subject relating to trade and manufacture in the Free State.
I rather differ from my friend Senator Dowdall on this matter. I think the cases are somewhat different. In this particular instance you are dealing with the prices and the charges made in small villages, towns and cities. It seems to me that local knowledge of all these places would be very necessary. I am inclined to agree with Senator Jameson that any five men you select will not have the requisite knowledge. In addition, I believe that the sittings of this Commission should not be confined to the City of Dublin. I think it should hold its sittings in the various localities where complaints arise. To my mind the only merits in this Bill are that it will give people a sense that if they are overcharged for anything they have some means of redress. Personally I believe they never will get any redress, but they will have a sort of satisfaction in feeling that if they are overcharged they can make a complaint to some representative of a powerful body. From that point of view I think it would be very desirable that the sittings of the Commission should not be confined merely to the City of Dublin. I, also, consider it very desirable that the number should be 25 from which to select. I believe further that as far as possible the places where the Commission sits should have representatives of their district upon the Commission.
I am quite certain that Senator Dowdall would never make a remark of the kind he did for the purpose of trying to gain a Party point, or to utter a jibe. Therefore, I think we should take him seriously. I think his idea is that this Commission should act like the Tariff Commission: That, in the first place, there should be notice given in the papers to the effect that all persons interested should appear before the Commission, and give the facts; that there should be full inquiry and that when the report comes before the Minister he should see that it would come before each House of the Oireachtas, before any price is fixed. If the Minister is prepared to give effect to that I would say that three or five persons would be sufficient, because they would act in a judicial capacity. They would not be acting upon their own opinion, but reporting the case as a result of the evidence put forward before them and upon which the Minister could act. I do not think that we have had any notification, as yet at any rate, that the Minister is prepared to have that kind of machinery set up for the purpose of dealing with prices which would I think follow from Senator Dowdall's proposal for a commission consisting of three or five persons.
I made no such proposal, but, if I may say so, I presume that any three intelligent persons selected by the Minister would not altogether run in blinkers. In regard to anything they did not know they would make inquiries, of course, on the spot.
We could settle this argument by pointing out that the procedure under this Bill is not at all dissimilar from that of the Tariff Commission. It was undoubtedly practically a public commission; it reported, and action was taken upon that; but there was nothing in the Tariff Commission Act that required publication of the report.
They had to give notice before they came to make inquiry so that parties interested could put their case and could be represented before the commission by counsel if necessary.
And they reported under a certain number of heads to the Minister for Finance, and upon their report the Minister for Finance acted, and, under the late administration, acted automatically. But nothing required him to act automatically and to publish the report.
But under this Bill he acts first.
The procedure we contemplate here is the carrying on of investigation as to the general prices of some commodities. The commission can on its own behalf make representations to the interested party to redress what has been done, and point out that it is a matter that requires attention. Then it reports to the Minister, giving the results of its investigation, and its recommendation as to the steps that might have to be taken to secure a reduction of prices, if it considers that excessive prices have been charged, and, finally, it states the circumstances that it thinks would justify a price fixing order. The Minister could not act until the report of the commission in all its bearings was before him.
I am somewhat in a difficulty in this matter. There have been quite strong opinions given in favour of the amendment, yet I hesitate a great deal to divide the House upon it. If the Minister tells us, quite candidly, that he cannot accept this amendment, and, that if it were passed, he would have to go to the Dáil and get it reversed, we would only arrive at a state of affairs that would not help. If the Minister assures us that he cannot accept the amendment I would not divide the House, even though I got this amendment carried against the Minister.
I would have to ask that the amendment be not pressed. If it were carried it would upset the whole scheme of the Bill, which is, that there must be a small permanent body continuously in existence to which may be added additional members if necessary. I believe a good many parts of the Bill could not be carried out if this amendment was accepted.
I ask to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move amendment 4:—
Section 8, sub-section (4). To delete in lines 34-35 the words "during the pleasure of the Minister" and to substitute therefor the words "for such period, not exceeding five years, as the Minister shall fix at the time the appointment is made."
The object of this amendment is to give to the settled number of members of the Commission a certain fixity of tenure. Under the Bill they are mere creatures of the Minister. They have not even the status of ordinary domestic servants who are entitled to a month's notice. The Minister's justification is that the necessity for this state of affairs is that the Commission is really only an advisory body which is to advise the Minister, and that the Minister is the person who has the ultimate decision and that it is not for that reason in any sense a judicial body. Now, with great respect, that is not so. Under Part III. of the Bill the Commission is to hold what is called price investigation. As a matter of fact they have to decide whether the prices all over the Saorstát or in any particular district are reasonable prices. That is a most important question of fact. They have also to deal with the complaint against particular individuals for charging unreasonably high prices. Whether an individual is charging unreasonably high prices or not is a question, not only of fact, but of absolutely material fact, so far as the person who is complained about is concerned. If the result of that enquiry is that the accused person is acquitted, then the matter ceases. No further action is taken and the decision is final. If the finding is that the price is unreasonable, then notice of reduction has to be served. If the price is reduced in accordance with that notice, again no further action is taken. But, under Part IV., the Commission is a court of appeal from the owner. If the appeal is bona fide and in the public interest, the Commission again holds an investigation, as it would have done under Part III., and with the same results. With all those circumstances, and with all those duties as to ascertaining the facts, with the power of having evidence taken on oath, and with the indirect power of imprisonment for contempt of court, it is really trifling with language to say that this is not a judicial body. If this is not a judicial body, as a matter of principle no member of that body ought to be at the mercy of any Minister. That is a matter of principle. It is a matter of pure democracy that if you set up a body with powers such as those, with the duty of deciding questions such as those, that body ought to be absolutely independent of the Government for the time being.
The second objection to this power of dismissal at the will of the Minister is this: As long as it is there, in my opinion, you will not get any independent-minded, qualified person to take the job. I do not think anybody, with the knowledge that he may be turned out at a minute's notice— that he may be turned out, even during the investigation of a particular case, without a moment's notice—I do not think that any man of independent mind, and that is the kind of man you want, will accept such a condition. I, therefore, beg to move the amendment.
I do not know whether the Minister will follow his predecessors in regard to this amendment. In this House, on a good many occasions, we have raised a very similar principle, and we were nearly always told by the Minister concerned that, of course, no Minister would do such a thing. I am inclined to think that the argument, as far as its being true is concerned, is probably correct, but it might, nevertheless, happen that a change of Government might take place. Another Minister might change the whole Commission, and while some people might think that excellent, frankly, I do not. I really believe also that it is a matter of principle. The amendment moved by Senator Brown is a really reasonable one. It gives the Minister power to fix any length of time. The Minister has power, under the amendment, to fix the period for six or eight months, or any period he likes up to five years, but for whatever period the Minister does fix it the person is reasonably independent. It is possible that further provision might be necessary to make the removal—possibly for such things as non-attendance or for some other serious cause. This could be done on the Report Stage if this amendment is passed. I think the Minister will realise that it does not add to the general confidence in the Minister if it can be said that the members of the Commission are the creatures of the Minister and that he may remove them at once if he likes. Things that they might do in perfectly good faith it may be said that they did because the Minister could immediately remove them. I think that it is better not to put a person on a Commission in this country who is simply at the mercy of the Minister. Let the Minister fix comparatively short periods in order to see how it works, and, at any rate, for whatever time the appointment is made, that a person cannot be removed except for non-attendance, malfeasance, or things of that kind. A definite period should be fixed so that the person concerned might know where he stood.
Senator Brown, I think, proved too much, or he made a very unwise charge against a very large and important body of the people in this country when he said that no man of independent mind would accept any position of responsibility on these terms. They happen to be the terms on which any civil servant acts to-day. They happen to be the terms on which the members even of bodies like the Income Tax or the Revenue Commissioners are appointed to-day and have the same functions. It might be said that the whole Service is recruited on such terms.
They are not appointed in the same way, and the terms of their appointment are fixed. Ministers are responsible for the actions of civil servants who have got to obey them.
Such as the Revenue Commissioners.
I was very glad to hear from Senator Douglas that this is a cause which has been fought before. The Senator, no doubt, will also remember that each time he fought it he lost. The practice adopted in this Bill is one that has been adopted on a number of occasions in the past, such as the Mines and Minerals Board.
That is not the same as this.
The members are removable at any time and they have wider and more important functions than those conferred on the Commissioners in this Act. The Commissioners cannot act without the concurrence of the Minister. The other Board can give one person's property to another under certain circumstances and are appointed on the same terms. However, the Senator says that it is a matter of principle, and I am not disposed to fight on the principle because I think that there is a lot to be said for it. What I am concerned with is that there are difficulties of a practical nature to be met with if that principle were embodied. Reference has been made to the difficulty of getting people to act on the Commission. That is an important consideration. If we appoint them for five years, and afterwards they find they have undertaken more than they thought they could do, or if they lose interest and merely take a casual interest in the proceedings, it might definitely impede the working of the Act for the term of their appointment. If any period were to be inserted, it would be necessary to have a consequential amendment providing for their removal for causes stated, such as that if it was found that the member did not do his work he could be substituted.
And with power to resign?
And power to resign. As I say, I am not disposed to fight on the amendment. I am prepared to accept it, but I would suggest that if the Senator would leave it over to the next stage I would have some such amendment embodied with the necessary consequential amendment inserted.
The draftsman could arrange the matter.
Cathaoirleach
The amendment to be brought forward on the Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 8 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Any member of the Commission may, if the Minister for Finance so directs, be paid such remuneration and allowances as the said Minister shall determine.
I move amendment 5:—
Section 11. To delete the section and to substitute therefor a new section as follows:—
11. Every member of the Commission shall, if the Minister for Finance so directs, be paid such out of pocket expenses as the said Minister shall determine.
Section 11, again, I think, raises a difficulty as to the working of the Commission; the Minister said that he hoped that he would get honorary members of the Commission, but Section 11 allows some of the members to be paid and some unpaid. I do not know whether any members of the House have ever tried to serve on commissions or bodies where they were sitting with some paid and some unpaid. I am afraid that the result will be that those who are paid will attend and do the business and that there will be a great temptation to the others not to come there. Anyhow, it is more or less a disqualification to the Commission at the very start. I remember that there was a debate here on the construction of this House and some people thought that we ought all to sit without any salaries. Again, there was a discussion as to whether some, who could afford it, should sit without salaries, and that those who could not afford it should have salaries. The whole thing was turned down because it was agreed at once that the two bodies could not get on together. That is past history, and well known. We had all to sit equally or we could not manage to make up a working body. I believe the same thing applies here. And my amendment presumes that the Minister will be able to get honorary members on his Commission who will not be paid, but that "every member of the Commission shall, if the Minister for Finance so directs, be paid such out-of-pocket expenses as the said Minister shall determine." If you put that section in instead of Section 11, it will be seen that it means that members of the Commission are not to be out of pocket in any way, but it does not allow of any of them being paid salaries. It is to raise that question that I put in the amendment, because I really believe that it will not be a good thing for the Commission to have paid members and unpaid members on it. That is what I wanted to bring before the House and before the Minister. The section as it stands, in my opinion, will make the Commission very unworkable.
I had the impression that this amendment was consequential on the Senator's previous amendment. As it stands, while it is undoubtedly true that we hope to get members to act on the Commission in return for their out of pocket expenses, it is conceivable that we will not succeed in getting them. It is conceivable that the Chairman or others in responsible positions would have to be remunerated or, alternatively, that the state of affairs for a period, such as, for instance, the first period which would require personal and more continuous attention, would be such as to require remuneration for that period. During that period it might be necessary to pay a salary which could be dispensed with at a later stage when the affair had become more or less a matter of routine. We hope to get people who will be suitable in every way and who can act without remuneration. Nevertheless, it is eminently desirable that we should be able to get a suitable Commission even if we have to pay some of the members.
I strongly agree with what Senator Jameson said when he stated that commissions, some members of which are paid and some unpaid, do not work satisfactorily. I am almost certain that if the Minister had experience of such bodies he would agree. It has been my experience—of course, one cannot very well give details—but it has been my experience that such bodies are not a success. I believe that, if the Minister has reasonable expectation of getting such people, he would be wise to put that in; but, if not, I should like to suggest that the word "any" should be changed to "every." That is, that, if the Minister for Finance so directs, he will pay every member. You will either give them out of pocket expenses, which they ought to get, or you will pay them all. I think that the Minister is extraordinarily optimistic if he thinks that he can start off with a paid Commission for a few months and that then they will become honorary members. I think that that is the height of optimism. I suggest that if the Commission starts at all, it should be honorary at the beginning, and paid afterwards if necessary. But if it starts paid, I think it is quite hopeless to expect that it will become afterwards an honorary Commission.
Could not this be worked on the principle that operates in the case of local bodies, namely, that anyone claiming expenses should be allowed them? In the case of public bodies, quite a number of members never claim expenses although expenses are allowed. I think that the same principle might work very well in the case of this Commission.
That is undoubtedly correct so far as out of pocket expenses are concerned. Every member of the Commission is entitled to get, and should get, his travelling expenses from his place of residence as well as a subsistence allowance, but it may be necessary to have a commission on which either all the members or, say, the chairman should definitely be remunerated. If, say, the chairman is definitely remunerated he would be required, in return for the remuneration given, to devote a specified part of his time to the work of the Commission. Any experience that I have had bears out the contention that commissions, some of the members of which are remunerated and others are not, do not work satisfactorily unless there is a clear division between the functions to be discharged by the members. It may be possible to do that here, but still I am of the opinion that the Bill is much better as it stands. If we were to adopt Senator Douglas's suggestion and put in the word "every", then, of course, a number of consequential amendments would be necessary to provide for, perhaps, differential rates of remuneration as between the chairman and other members.
As I have said, I think the Bill is more satisfactory as it stands, because if the necessity arises it enables us to pay remuneration to any member if it is agreed that a particular individual, possessing certain qualifications, is required on the Commission, and that such an individual could not reasonably be expected to give his time free. It is quite possible that you will get the other members of the Commission to agree in certain circumstances to the remuneration of one member who has special qualifications, or in respect of whom special circumstances arise. That is why I would prefer that the Bill should remain as it is.
I am not as pessimistic as Senator Douglas in that respect because I believe that we will get people to act without remuneration. It may be that the members may have to be remunerated for a year or two and that they will cease to be remunerated after that period. I may be unduly optimistic, but I think Senator Douglas is unduly pessimistic as regards the public spirit of our people. We cannot at the moment have any clear idea as to the difficulties that will arise in connection with this, and that is why some discretionary power must be allowed.
The Minister's optimism is certainly greater than my pessimism. If the Minister thinks that this is a vital part of the Bill and that it would upset things if the amendment were carried, then I am not going to press it. I hope the Minister will succeed in getting his honorary members.
My suggestion to insert the word "every" did not mean that they had all got to be paid alike. It meant that either all the members of the Commission were to get out of pocket expenses or that they were all to be paid, but it did not mean that the chairman would not get a higher rate than the other members if there was good reason for it.
I think that the Senator's amendment would require consequential amendments to permit of differential rates for the members.
I do not think it would require that, but of course that is only a detail.
Cathaoirleach
Is Senator Douglas moving now to insert the word "every"?
I am reserving the right to put down an amendment to that effect for Report, if I think fit.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment 6:—
Section 12. To delete the section and to substitute therefor a new section as follows:—
12. Any member of the Commission who is personally interested in any industry, trade or business which is for the time being the subject of investigation by the Commission, shall inform the Minister of the nature and the extent of his interest, and the Minister may, if he thinks fit, appoint a person to act in the place of such member for the purpose of the particular investigation.
The object of the amendment is to substitute new wording for the present section. If I understand Section 12 aright it means that any person who in the opinion of the Minister is substantially interested in any industry cannot serve as a member of the Commission. It frequently arises on boards and committees that persons whose services are decidedly valuable have, nevertheless, some interest in them. In my opinion there is no reason why a person interested in an industry, a person who might prove extremely useful as a member, should not serve, provided the full amount of his interest is known and is disclosed at the time. I suggest to the Minister that persons should not be disqualified because they have some interest, but instead that they should be obliged to disclose to the Minister the full amount of their interest. The Minister, if he accepts the principle of my amendment, may be able to improve the wording of it. If the nature and extent of a person's interest is disclosed to the Minister, then I think no action should be taken unless the Minister is of opinion that that person's interest is so great that he should not act.
For instance, if you have a very important inquiry, it might very easily happen that you would have seven or eight members acting on that. If one of the members happens to be interested in the particular matter that is being inquired into, I think the inquiry would be likely to be far better by reason of the fact that you had that person on it. Unless he had a very big interest in that particular industry the Minister, I imagine, would probably see no reason against his acting on it. Obviously, the Minister will use his discretion as to the persons selected to make an inquiry into a particular trade. My amendment, I suggest, allows for greater elasticity than the section as it stands, and I think, if accepted, it would enable the Minister to get a better commission.
I think the amendment is likely to be an improvement on the Bill and I am quite willing to accept it.
I am just wondering whether the amendment in its present wording——
The wording may have to be modified.
The amendment speaks of "any member of the Commission who is personally interested in any industry, trade or business which is for the time being the subject of investigation." It is not the industry, trade or business that is necessarily the subject of investigation, but some particular article. Take the case of a grocer's shop in which a great variety of articles is sold. That business, which is of a very general character, is not the subject of inquiry but rather a particular article. It may be the sale of that article in that particular shop that is the subject of inquiry. It seems to me that the amendment does not cover that kind of inquiry.
I am quite prepared to meet that by putting down my amendment for Report Stage. If the Minister brings in an amendment on Report to meet my point, I will probably withdraw mine.
I will do that.
If the Minister were to introduce an amendment with such words as "subject matter of investigation" it would probably be better, because it is really what Senator Douglas wants, I think.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 12 agreed to.
Sections 13, 14 and 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment 7:—
Section 16, sub-section (1). Before paragraph (g) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(g) the attendance of representatives of such trade associations as shall satisfy the Commission that they represent a reasonable number of persons who are directly affected by any particular investigation.
The object of the amendment is to provide that in the regulations which the Commission will make for its proceedings there should be definite provision made for the attendance of the representatives of trade associations. I have been careful in the amendment to provide that it is only such representatives as satisfy the Commission that they represent a reasonable number of persons, that shall have this right. I think there should be specific instructions to the Commission to allow the representatives of trade associations to attend. In most cases possibly that may not be necessary, but it is likely there will be quite a number of important inquiries in which it will be necessary. The matter has been mentioned to me by a number of people. I admit that the amendment is little more than a gesture to the Commission, but I think that if the amendment were inserted it would tend to allay a certain amount of apprehension.
The powers given to the Commission under sub-section (1), paragraph (f) of Section 16 as well as in Section 17 largely meet the point covered by the amendment. I have no objection to clarifying the position if the Senator thinks it is necessary to do so. As a matter of fact, I have a draft amendment before me that I am prepared to introduce on Report to meet the Senator's point.
I think there is objection to paragraph (f). There is a feeling, probably quite unjustified I admit, that the Commission may decide that they will hear no trade associations at all. I think there should be an instruction to the Commission that they should hear the representatives of trade associations if they are satisfied that these represent a sufficient number of people. Under paragraph (f) they can say that they will hear none at all.
The draft amendment that I would propose to introduce on Report would be lettered (d). It reads:
The making of submissions and the giving of evidence by any person on behalf of any association or body appearing to the Commission to be substantially interested in the particular investigation or matter to be made or determined by the Commission.
That meets my point.
Before the amendment is accepted, I would like to know if the attendance and the evidence of the representatives of trade associations would preclude an individual who had a substantial interest in a trade from being heard. My reason for raising the point is this: that under the administration of Food Control in Belfast and in Dublin there were members of trades who had quite substantial trade interests but who were not members of any trade association. So far as the interests of these people in Belfast and Dublin were concerned they were considered. A certain injustice would be done to a minority in a trade who were not members of a trade association if they had not the right to be heard before this Commission.
There is no doubt whatever that an individual, as such, would have the right to have his interests considered. There was a doubt in my mind as to whether the representatives of trade associations would have that right, but there is no doubt at all as to the right of an individual.
I am very glad that the Minister has suggested an alternative that will carry out Senator Douglas's intention. I know that during our investigations in connection with the Prices Tribunal we got some very valuable evidence from trade associations. We tried, if possible, to get in touch with them but we were not always able to do it. One trade association, through its unfortunate secretary, refused to give evidence with the result that he was committed for contempt of court and stayed in jail for five months.
The Tribunal had judicial authority then?
If the House allows me to substitute the wording suggested by the Minister I am quite satisfied to move the amendment, as amended, now, and have the matter disposed of.
Cathaoirleach
I think it is better to allow it to remain over for Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That Section 17 stand part of the Bill."
I would like to have some information as to the character of the documents that the Commission, under this section, can enforce the production of. Is it not the intention that the private ledgers and all the more intimate information of a business be laid before a Commission of five? This section seems to me to be extraordinarily harsh. I do not think it is calculated to ensure the co-operation of business. It is one thing to take powers and do things by force and quite another to seek co-operation and use persuasion. Does the Minister contemplate that intimate documents and the private affairs of a business can be ransacked by this Commission?
Definitely, that is the intention. It is intended that the Commission shall have power to demand the production of all documents, where necessary, to enable it to carry out its investigations. The powers which the Commission will have are similar to the powers which were exercised by the Tribunal on Food Prices and which are frequently conferred on special commissions established by the Dáil, from time to time, for particular purposes, but I am definitely of the opinion that the Commission would be quite useless if it had not got that power of demanding the production of documents.
Of course, the documents must be relevant.
Oh, yes.
They must be quite relevant to the inquiry, and I think the farthest we ever went on the Food Prices Tribunal was the production of the balance sheet of a business. We never had to go to private books, ledgers, or anything like that. But we were entitled to get and we did get, sometimes with a little difficulty, all the documents which were relevant to the question as to whether an excessive or unreasonable profit was being taken. The Commission will be entitled, as a matter of ordinary law, to get only documents which are really relevant and they ought to get the whole of these.
Does the test of profiteering not depend on the price that the seller pays for the article he is selling and the price he charges then to his customer? What has his balance sheet got to do with such a transaction? If one man sells at a profiteering rate he may actually make less profit, because he will do less business than the man who sells at a fair price. Is not the proper attitude to take up one of seeing that the man who sells is selling only at a fair profit on what he is paying?
You get the percentage of profit he is selling at by means of his balance sheet.
I maintain that in order to do any good you have to ransack the affairs of the business. You cannot dissociate one transaction from another in business. A man may undoubtedly make what appears to be an undue profit on one transaction to cover losses on previous transactions. The whole thing is interwoven and, surely, anybody who has the most elementary knowledge of business knows that it is not conducted in watertight compartments. There is the question of reserves and of contingent liability, and I think it is just as well that it should go forth from this House now that the trade must be prepared to put all its cards on the table and allow every single detail of its business to be enquired into if the Commission is to be in the least effective. I think you are going to produce the effect of alarming the public, with due cause, by provisions of this kind, and the House knows, and I am sure Senator Johnson knows, what happens when you create a large amount of irritation in business. Traders are very well able to protect themselves, and no law is going to save the public or the consumer from the actions that business will take for its own protection.
I take it that the House, having passed the Second Reading, has decided that the machinery for carrying it out must be effective, and I can say that it is my very definite view that there is no value at all in the Bill unless it has the powers indicated—either those powers or such powers as are provided in the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, which were made applicable to the Tribunal over which Senator Brown presided. I do not know whether these powers are any wider than the powers under the other Act. I do not think they are, but, certainly, unless these powers are to be given to the Commission, we had better scrap the proposals in the Bill entirely.
The last words of Senator Johnson were the most sensible I have heard—that the best thing to do would be to scrap the whole thing. The Bill is entirely unworkable and will only result in a lot of hardship to business people.
Cathaoirleach
We have decided not to scrap the Bill for the present, Senator. This is Committee Stage.
I compliment Senator Johnson on his suggestion. I believe that the Bill is unworkable and will do no good to the people——
Cathaoirleach
Wait for the Final Stage, Senator.
It will confer no benefit on anybody and it does not matter what amendments we put in. It is an unwarrantable piece of interference with the people.
Senator Brown said that the documents produced must, of course, be relevant and there is one danger I see in this, although I do not know exactly how it is to be remedied. If you have, as your chairman, a lawyer or some person experienced in deciding matters of the kind, you will probably not cause injustice, but if you have a layman who has not had experience as chairman it might be decidedly dangerous to give exactly the same powers as a High Court would have, as it is suggested here. In the case of a High Court, these powers are exercised by persons of judicial training who are in the habit of judging a matter from a judicial point of view. I think that probably the words in line 12, on page 6, which provide that the High Court may hold such inquiry as it thinks proper, would be some protection—I am not sure—because we might more or less assume that, if the Commission demanded the production of documents which were in no way relevant to the inquiry, and if they reported to the Court that the documents had been refused, the High Court would probably refuse to commit a person for contempt on the ground that they were not relevant. If that "may" means "shall," after inquiry, I think it ought to be amended, because if that "may" has the ordinary common meaning, it means that the Court could inquire and would not commit a person for contempt if they thought that the demand was unreasonable. If it means "shall," as "may" in law sometimes means, it- means that although they inquire, they nevertheless would have to commit because there has been a refusal of the Tribunal's demand. I should like the Minister to look into it and to see what is the proper definition because, while I agree with Senator Sir John Keane and Senator Johnson that some such powers are necessary, it is our business to see that the powers cannot be abused.
Arising out of what Senator Douglas has said I cannot see any information that could not be held to be relevant to an inquiry into the profits that a person is making. You cannot arrive at what is a fair profit until you know the whole circumstances of the business—what the reserves are, what the turnover has been over a period or what the depreciation is. All these matters are relevant to an inquiry into profits and I think that, in face of that, everything must be laid on the table if the Commission is to be effective.
I think that "may" there means "may," in view of the qualifying words "after such inquiry as it may think proper to make." There would obviously be no necessity for the court to inquire if it was compelled to commit in any case.
Yes, but the discretion of a High Court is a judicial discretion and not the discretion of an ordinary man. The High Court must use discretion, in accordance with rules of law, one of which is that they cannot compel a man to produce a document which has no relevancy to the question at issue.
Section 17 agreed to.
Sections 18 to 22 inclusive agreed to.
SECTION 23.
(1) Where the Minister sends a request to the Commission to investigate whether unreasonably high retail prices or unreasonably high wholesale prices (as may be specified in such request) are being charged throughout Saorstát Eireann or in any specified part thereof for any scheduled commodity which conforms to the specification set out in such request, the Commission shall as soon as may be make an investigation (in this Part of this Act referred to as a price investigation) in accordance with such request.
(2) Before sending under the immediately preceding sub-section a request to the Commission to make an investigation into the price (whether retail or wholesale) of butter the Minister shall first consult the Minister for Agriculture.
(3) Where any person (other than the Minister) sends a representation in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars representing that unreasonably high retail prices or unreasonably high wholesale prices (as may be specified in such representation) are being charged throughout Saorstát Eireann or in any specified part thereof for any scheduled commodity which conforms to the specification set out in such representation, the Commission shall, if and only if they are of opinion that an investigation should in the public interest be made, make subject to the provisions of the next following sub-section as soon as may be an investigation (in this Part of this Act also referred to as a price investigation) into the subject matter of such representation.
(4) Where a representation under the immediately preceding sub-section relates to the price (whether wholesale or retail) of butter, the Commission shall refer such representation to the Minister for Agriculture, and shall not make any investigation into the subject matter of such representation except with the consent of the said Minister.
I move amendment No. 8:—
Section 23. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(5) Where the Commission have made an investigation into the retail price of any commodity and are of the opinion that unreasonably high retail prices are being charged but that the retail profits are fair and reasonable, they may, without any specific request having been made under this or any other section, proceed to make an investigation into the wholesale prices, and, if the commodity is a protected commodity, may make an investigation into the prices charged for such commodity by manufacturers in Saorstát Eireann.
The remarks I am going to make in connection with this amendment will apply, to some extent, to amendments 9, 10, 11 and 12, all of which are designed to achieve the same purpose. As this Bill stands, unless I completely misread it, it provides that, if the Commission holds an inquiry into the price of a commodity, and forms the opinion that the price is too high, they must immediately set certain machinery in motion, which will be found in Section 24. I suggest to the Minister that that is really an absurd provision. The machinery provided in Section 24 is only equitable where it is the retail price that is too high because of retail profits. If the Commission find other reasons for the too high price—and we can think of many possible reasons—it is ridiculous to start to attack the retailer alone. You achieve no purpose and create only a certain amount of chaos by frightening the retailer out of selling the article at all. Where the Commission hold an inquiry, on the request of the Minister, or in any other way, into retail prices, and if they find that it is the wholesale price that is too high, or that it is the manufacturer's price that is too high, there is no use in going straight for the retailer by means of the elaborate machinery provided in Section 24.
If they find that the price is too high because there are too many distributors or too many middlemen, or because of high wages, or because of any other reason, they should report to the Minister and he should consider what steps he would take to deal with the commodity, but there is no need at all, I suggest, for putting machinery into motion whereby ever so many notices will be sent out to every person affected as a retailer, if the Commission should find the cause was not the retail profits. If they find that the cause is retail profits, then, of course, the provisions of Section 24 of the Bill could apply. This specific amendment provides that if the Commission make an inquiry into retail prices—the Bill does not define clearly the difference between wholesale and retail prices, but it defines the two types of inquiry —and are satisfied that retail profits are too high, instead of putting this machinery into operation they might, if they thought fit—I do not say that they must—proceed to make an investigation into wholesale or manufacturers' prices. If you are going to have a general inquiry into prices, there is not the slightest use in reporting that retail prices are too high. You may as well go to the bottom of it and find out what the reason is.
When we were drafting the Bill, we took the view that investigation into retail prices would necessitate an investigation into wholesale and manufacturers' prices for the commodity concerned. My view is that the amendment is not necessary and that, in fact, the Commission could not do its work without carrying out an investigation into wholesale and manufacturers' prices. There is nothing in the Bill to preclude them from doing so. In fact, the underlying assumption in the wording of the Bill is that they will do so without question, and, certainly, that was the intention when we were drafting the Bill in this form. There is, of course, always the risk that, if the amendment were carried, it would convey some limitation of the Commission's powers to investigate retail prices. It would convey the suggestion that, in the investigation of retail prices, they were precluded from investigating wholesale or manufacturers' prices, unless they announced their intention of doing so, and proceeded to start a new investigation on the new basis.
I am not at all certain that the Bill is as clear as the Minister thinks. I cannot just at the moment, in view of his remarks, read it through in detail, but the Bill has different subsections dealing with retail prices and wholesale prices. It certainly regards them as separate investigations, and there is the impression that an inquiry into retail prices would not necessarily mean an investigation of manufacturers' prices.
The necessity for having retail and wholesale prices specified in the Bill is that the Minister may desire merely to have wholesale prices investigated. He may feel that it is impracticable, or that there is no reason, to investigate the retail prices of commodities, but, on the other hand, he may feel that there is an urgent need for investigating wholesale prices. In that case, he can require the Commission to carry out an investigation into wholesale prices only, but I think it will be agreed that, if he requires it to carry out an investigation into retail prices of various commodities, the Commission, if it is to do the investigating properly, will have to have regard to wholesale prices and will have to investigate these as well as the manufacturer's price, behind the wholesale prices, if there is such a price. In other words the retail price may be taken to include the wholesale price for the purpose of investigation.
The Minister is arguing what I was arguing. Section 23 (1) says:—"Where the Minister sends a request to the Commission to investigate whether unreasonably high retail prices or unreasonably high wholesale prices are being charged." The requisition could specify both but clearly it should specify either one. There is nothing to say that a requisition on retail prices involved wholesale prices. There again inquiry might show that the real trouble was with the retail prices, in which case there would be no necessity to go any further. My amendment endeavours to make it clear that the Commission may go and investigate. The other amendments deal with Section 24 to which I referred. If the Minister is satisfied I do not care about the details. I only raised the point because I think there is a flaw.
Supposing there is an investigation as the result of a complaint against an individual trader as to the retail price being unreasonably high, would it follow then, in the opinion of the Minister, that retail and wholesale prices might be investigated, even if the requisition only takes the form of a complaint referring to the retail prices? If it was found on investigation that the retail price was not so much at fault, and that it was not the trader's fault, but the fault of either the middleman or the wholesaleman, would that follow?
We may get a requisition to investigate the wholesale prices of a commodity. One can imagine that coming from a retailer, in which case he would desire the Commission to investigate wholesale prices. But if we desired the retail prices to be investigated, and that the Commission had referred to it a complaint either by the Minister or by some other person in respect of whom a price certificate is about to be issued, and if he pleads the defence that the price is the general level, and that it is the general level should be investigated, in these circumstances it is clear that the Commission would have to investigate all the circumstances that led to the price, which would include all the other prices behind the retail price. The reason for the distinction between wholesale and retail is that it may be desirable, for the purposes of convenience, to narrow down the investigation to the manufacturers' or the wholesale prices and not to worry about retail prices. It was in our minds definitely when drafting the Bill that if the retail price was complained of, and if it was desired to have it investigated, all the other prices would be examined at the same time by the Commission. That is why I think the amendment is not necessary. It certainly was the intention that the Commission would function in that way.
I am perfectly clear about what is in the Minister's mind and what is in my own mind, but I am not convinced that what I want is in the Bill. I do not want to press the amendment, because I think what we discuss here will not be read when the Commission comes to interpret the Act. It would probably be better to put in some provision that an inquiry into the retail price involved the other ones.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 24.
I move amendment 9:—
Section 24, sub-section (1). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "and such report shall be laid upon the Table of each House of the Oireachtas."
While this amendment is not of very much importance it is only fair to the trade generally that if the Minister gets a report to the effect that the prices are not unreasonably high he should lay it on the Table of both Houses. If the full report is not laid the facts contained in it should be laid.
I think so too, but I do not want to bind myself to lay every report automatically on the Table of each House. It is possible that an investigation might take place into the price of articles sold by one or two firms or manufactured by them. Circumstances might arise in which an injustice would be done to a firm by automatically publishing a report of the prices charged by it. I feel that the Commission would write the report for publication and I think that would give all the information they considered desirable. There might be a case in which it would be undesirable that the report should be published. My view is that the report should be published unless there were some strong arguments against it. That is why the Bill remains much the same as the Tariff Commission Act, which does not require publication, although every report has been published because no circumstances to the contrary arose. I think we can devise an amendment to meet the point.
"If the Minister sees fit."
Some section which would indicate a presumption in favour of publication.
The Minister says that one or two firms might be concerned and that is the case I have in mind. If an investigation only concerned one or two firms and if the report was that their prices were not unreasonably high it is only fair that it should be published. I will withdraw the amendment as it has served the purpose.
In that case you could not imagine a report saying that the prices were investigated and were found not to be high, not because of the desire to profiteer but because of the competency and efficiency of the firms concerned.
We are only dealing with Section I, which refers to where the prices are not unreasonably high. The other is a separate matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 10:—
Section 24, sub-section (2). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Where after the completion of a price investigation the Commission are of the opinion that the prices the subject of such investigation are unreasonably high, but that the cause of the high prices is not excessive retail or wholesale profit, the Commission shall report accordingly, and such report shall be laid upon the Table of each House of the Oireachtas.
This amendment deals with a different point. I do not want to deal with the last words because we have dealt with the principle previously. If it is found that prices are unreasonably high the section says that the provision in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (2) shall have effect. My case is that if the price is not unreasonably high for some other reason than the retail profits the Commission should simply report to the Minister and let him see what was the best way to deal with it. The sending of a notice to the retailers will not solve the problem. I would be glad if the Minister when replying would give some idea of what he visualises under sub-section (2). It says:—
the Commission shall give notice ... to the persons by whom such prices are being charged stating the opinion of the Commission and the price to which such prices should in the opinion of the Commission be reduced, and requiring such reduction to be made within a time specified in such notice.
We mentioned some cases where you might have eight or ten dozen shops, and we visualise vehicles and stalls. I do not see how the Commission could give notice to all the persons concerned. My main point is that you should not force all the provisions in the sub-section to come into effect except for the purpose of dealing with retail prices.
The intention behind the paragraph is that if the Commission as a result of investigation are satisfied that unreasonably high prices are being charged, before the question of the report involving action would arise, the Commission would endeavour, by representation to the people concerned, to secure a reduction of the prices. The paragraph was intended to provide power to the Commission on its own behalf, by private representation or otherwise to secure the readjustment of the position rather than that they should proceed immediately to report what action should be taken in pursuance of the Minister's power to secure redress.
They have no option. The sub-section says: "Where ... the Commission are of opinion that the prices the subject of such investigation are unreasonably high ... the Commission shall give notice ..." My point is that there should not be provision in every circumstance to adopt this method. There are circumstances where the provision would be useless. I am not questioning that if you are dealing with retail prices it is better that the Commission should try, by giving certain notice, to endeavour to get common agreement. The Minister says he thinks that will be achieved. I have my doubts that it will be. If they are satisfied that the cause is other than the high price charged by the retailer or the wholesaler or manufacturer, and if it is caused through other reasons they should report the other reasons to the Minister rather than put all this machinery into effect.
I think there is a point there to be examined, and I will have it looked into.
In view of what the Minister says, I will withdraw the amendment until the Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The same applies to amendments 11 and 12.
Question—"That Section 24 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 25.
I move amendment 13:—
Section 25, sub-section (6). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—
(6) Every price order in relation to an article sold by weight shall fix the maximum price of such article in terms of the net weight of such article at the time of sale.
The object of the amendment is to ensure that in the fixing of a price order it will not be an order relating to an article, perhaps a packed article, but should have reference to the net weight of the article. It may be argued that the matter of net weight should be the subject of separate legislation, but, when dealing with price, it seems to me we must have regard to the weight or measure of the article in question, and that the price order should be directed to the net weight. It should not be possible to deal with an article except by reference to the net content of any package that it might be packed in. I do not want to argue the case. It is so obvious that either it is accepted or it is not, but I do not think it desirable that we should pass this legislation without meeting the question of weights or measures in the hope that at some future time we shall have legislation to deal with the question of weights and measures. I think that we should insert some provision in this measure— even though there is further legislation dealing with the same subject on the stocks.
I am agreeable to accept the amendment in principle. The wording may require some attention.
Amendment deferred to Report Stage.
Sections 25 to 27, inclusive, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 28.
I move amendment No. 14:—
New section. Before Section 28 to insert a new section as follows:—
28.—(1) Whenever a price (retail) order is in force for any commodity and any person sends a representation in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars representing that the wholesale or manufacturers' prices for that commodity have risen since the price order was made, the Controller shall, if he is satisfied with the accuracy of the facts set out in the representation, do either of the following things, that is to say—
(a) send a report to the Minister requesting him to revoke the said price order; or
(b) summon a meeting of the Commission to investigate further the price of the commodity.
(2) If after an investigation into the price of a commodity has taken place under the provisions of this section the Commission are of the opinion that the price order should be revoked or altered, they shall report to the Minister accordingly.
The object of the amendment is to try to make some provision for other people who may conceivably have a grievance under this Act other than the person who has been charged too high a price. It seems to me that if you are to be logical and fair, if you are going to provide for the fixing of a maximum price, when that maximum price is in force, it is only reasonable to provide some machinery so that persons who are selling goods and who may have to face a substantial increase in cost, should have a method of applying to have the maximum price altered or increased. As the Bill stands the Minister can do it if he keeps a sufficient watch on prices but I want to have machinery provided by which the people affected shall have the same right to have an inquiry made and to have the order revoked or altered as the case may be. My suggestion is that they should send in the facts as to the change in price to the Controller and if the Controller is satisfied as to the reasonable accuracy of the facts as stated by the persons who make the representations he can do either of two things—if the thing is quite obvious he can send a report to the Minister asking him to revoke the price order or, if he is satisfied that there is a fair case for investigation but that he is not absolutely convinced as to the facts, he can summon a meeting of the Commission and have the matter investigated. As the Bill stands the only method of providing for a revocation is by trusting to the Minister to watch prices or by having people lobbying him in the Dáil. I think that where you have a Price Order in force there should be machinery by which the retailer can move to have a revocation of that Order if he thinks such necessary.
I think the proposal is not unreasonable but if you accept it in respect of a Retail Price Order I think it should apply also in respect of a Wholesale Price Order. If the Senator would leave it over I shall look into the matter.
The intention was to have this machinery only in respect of the Retail Price Order but the Minister may also have to deal with the Manufacturers' Price Order as well.
Amendment deferred to Report Stage.
Section 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 29.
I move amendment No. 15:—
New section. Before Section 29, and in Part IV., to insert a new section as follows:—
29.—(1) Where a person sells a scheduled commodity the price of which exceeds two shillings and sixpence or a number of different scheduled commodities the prices of which when added together exceed five shillings, he shall issue to the purchaser at the time of sale a written statement of the weight, measure or number of the commodities sold, the price per unit of weight, measure or number, as the case may be, and the sum charged for the said commodity or commodities.
(2) If any person acts in contravention of this section he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding two pounds for each such offence.
I said on the Second Stage of the Bill that I thought a good deal of importance should be attached to an individual complaint of overcharging, and it seems to me that the necessity exists for having some kind of documentary evidence. There is no doubt that the practice in many places in the case of the shopkeepers sending out an article or a number of articles, is to send them out without any reference to weight or the price per unit. The retailer simply states the total price on the invoice, or there may be no invoice at all, or no bill, as we call it. There is no chance in these circumstances of the buyer making any case at all if there has been an overcharge. I think it is a very desirable practice when articles are sold, principally when articles are sent away, that there should be a specific invoice or statement of the way the amount charged is arrived at, otherwise there is no chance at all of deciding what was the price charged for a particular article.
Take meat. One gets meat sent to a house and there is either no weight or no price indicated. Sometimes the weight and the total amount charged are given, but the price per lb. is not stated. That is a very common experience, one that I have watched for a considerable time. There is the difficulty then of convincing anybody that there has been an overcharge. There should be an obligation imposed on the shopkeeper when selling an article to state the price definitely. There should be an obligation on him to send out a check of some sort indicating how the price is made up. That is the object of this new section and I would ask the Minister to consider it and, if possible, to have it inserted in the Bill.
This is a theoretical amendment which, with great respect, I suggest is utterly unworkable. If an amendment of this kind were to be made in the Bill it would inevitably add to the price of a great many small commodities. I know in detail the retail portion of one particular trade and I have a knowledge of others in a different capacity. The usual practice where goods are sent out either on credit or as a delivery is that a docket is always enclosed. That creates no serious difficulty. I do not say it is always the practice. I am quite certain it is not, but it is the usual practice. When you come to cash sales, particularly at a busy time, across the counter, you are going to make it obligatory under this amendment that in respect of every sale which represents 2/6, 5/- or even 10/-, you must have full details, the exact quantities and so on written out. You are in that way going to add to the cost of the commodity. I should like to invite Senator Johnson to come to assist some of my shop assistants whom he finds trying to sell an article at 2/6 and a packet of pins, and to assist him in counting the pins in the packet, as he would have to count them in order to put the exact number on the docket if this amendment were inserted. Again, if you were buying a card of mending wool, I cannot guarantee that the length of the wool will always be the same. Does the Senator realise that the additional cost entailed in supplying all these details would have to be added to the price of the commodity? As far as one scheduled commodity here is concerned, the thing is not workable.
There is another reason why the amendment should not be accepted. In my own business I thought some time ago that there would be a great deal to be said for a system of stating the nett amount purchased on every bill, or giving a docket with the amount purchased set out in it, but we found that the customers simply would not have them. The floor was littered with them; the customers would not take them away. That is the usual thing in business. I cannot say, of course, that every trade is the same, but certainly, as far as I know of my own knowledge, there is a specific instruction in every case, no matter how small the purchase is, that where the customer asks for a docket he is to get it. If however, you insert a provision that the exact quantity sold and the price of each item have to be furnished, it will prove either unworkable or the cost of working it would be added to the purchase price, and it is in the case of the smaller commodities that the cost would be greatest. I hope that the Minister will not accept the amendment in the detail in which it stands, because I do not think it will work at all.
Senator Douglas has given the customer's view of these dockets. I look at the amendment from the point of view of the unfortunate shopkeeper in the country. There are innumerable small shops in country districts. How on earth could they work a provision such as this? It would be absolutely unworkable. Senator Johnson pays a very poor compliment to housekeepers in the country, because he seems to infer that they will not have the intelligence to inquire what is the price per lb. for meat. When a person goes in to buy 5 or 6 lbs. of meat, the very first thing any person of ordinary intelligence would do would be to inquire what the price per lb. the meat was. This seems to me to be an extraordinary amendment, and I hope it will not be accepted. It would add to the general vexatiousness, if I might use such a word, of the whole Bill. It would add enormously to shopkeepers' expenses. Even the smallest shop would have to get a special clerk to make out these dockets. My own practice is, as Senator Douglas states, to leave these dockets on the counter, or to throw them on the floor. I do not want to have my handbag crowded with them. The amendment is altogether unnecessary, and I hope it will not be accepted.
I think the opposition to this amendment is so general that it could not possibly be accepted by the Minister. In the very complicated state of affairs that obtains to-day, it takes much longer to obtain an article than it did heretofore. The shopkeeper has to consider very frequently whether he can afford to sell it at a certain price because he has not got it through the customs and he does not know what the price is going to be. All these complications add greatly to costs and if he has to supply a docket in respect of every article which he sells, the time and money which that entails will be added to the cost so that purchasers are going to lose much more than the problematical gain conferred on him by this provision. I think it would make business exceedingly complicated and would lead to a ridiculous situation.
My objection to the amendment is that if you make this provision law it will not be observed and one of the worst things you can have is a law that is not observed. Further, it may not work.
I think Senator Brown's argument against the amendment is one that has weighed most heavily with me. If the amendment were inserted in the Bill and became law, every shopkeeper would be immediately required to give receipts setting out the information suggested here on each occasion that a sale of the kind indicated took place. They would simply just not do that and you would have a very large percentage of shopkeepers liable to the suggested fine of £2. There is, however, a lot to be said for the proposal. There is undoubtedly a problem there. It is desirable that customers should know exactly for what they are paying. That is a problem we have been considering in relation to another Bill that is in contemplation, the nett Weights and Measures Bill. It seems to me that this is a matter that would apply more correctly to that Bill than this.
The amendment is not strictly relevant, in one sense to this Bill, although for the purpose of the Bill a customer might require to get a receipt in order to establish a charge of undue price-charging. In that case it is the practice for the shopkeeper to give such a receipt. I do not think it is possible to accept the amendment. I know there are occasions on which it would be completely impossible to carry it out even in shops not concerned with customs' regulations. There are some shops where the goods sold, although Senator Bagwell may not know it, do not pass through the customs at all. Even if Senator Bagwell went into a shop where goods were of Irish manufacture, and not subject to the test he mentioned, if that shop was doing a good trade as it would be, it would be possible to have that requirement carried out in all its accuracy. But the problem that Senator Johnson is trying to deal with and to which we have been giving consideration for a considerable time, will arise under another measure to be introduced and I hope by then we will have gone some distance towards finding a solution.
When drafting this amendment I confess I inserted the words "demand by the purchaser," and I thought it better to delete these words for the purpose of getting this matter discussed. I am not at all convinced that the thing is so impracticable as some Senators contend. As a matter of practice most shopkeepers do issue documents for the protection of their own accounts, and to have a check upon their assistants. The unfortunate part is that the document only gives the carried-out amount and no indication to the customer how the amount is made up. I can see very little chance of Part IV. of the Bill being effective without such provision as this. I do not know how any tribunal is going to take the word of the purchaser, or the word of the shopkeeper, on a mere cash transaction unless there is some evidence of the way that the charge is made up— the price per unit plus the number of articles. The mere statement that the price of a certain purchase is 25/- means nothing to the tribunal. I cannot see how we are to make any use at all of Part IV. of the Bill without some such evidence of a documentary character.
I must say Senator Miss Browne has had very fortunate experience. She often reminds the House that she is a farmer, and she seems perfectly content with the practice of the retail shopkeepers with whom she has come in contact. I have had a considerable amount of experience among the farming population in one way or another both by personal contact and by reading, and I find a considerable amount of evidence against her view. Senator Miss Browne has had a very fortunate experience among shopkeepers if she finds that they were always fair and generous in their treatment of her as a purchaser or as a seller to retail shopkeepers. I think the preponderance of opinion amongst the farming community is that it would be a good thing if they had some security that they, as purchasers, would not be subject to an excessive price charge, even in special cases. I do not know whether it would meet the objection if some such section as this were inserted in the Bill with an amendment that if the customer demands a docket it would be obligatory to issue one. I have had experience myself where shopkeepers refused to give a docket if there was an actual suspicion or doubt about the weight and the price charged, and they refused to compromise themselves by giving a document that would indicate how the price was made up. Without some such provision here showing how Part IV. of the Act is to be enforced there will be no valuable result. I think if I may be allowed to withdraw this amendment and to consider whether it could be amended so as not to have the appearance of being so formidable as it is now it might be introduced again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 29 agreed to.
SECTION 30.
(1) Any person may make in writing to the Controller a complaint (in this Part of this Act referred to as a complaint) alleging that a person who carries on a business by way of trade or for the purposes of gain has sold or offered for sale to him in the course or as part of such business at an unreasonably high price a scheduled commodity.
(2) Every complaint shall—
(a) state the name and address of the complainant;
(b) state the name and address of the person who is alleged to have sold or offered for sale the commodity to which the complaint relates;
(c) state the date of the alleged sale or offering for sale;
(d) state the nature of the alleged transaction (whether wholesale or retail);
(e) state the place where the transaction is alleged to have taken place;
(f) state the price alleged to have been charged or demanded for such commodity;
(g) contain a specification of such commodity.
(3) If any person makes in any complaint any statement which is false or misleading in any material respect, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
I beg to move amendment No. 16:—
Section 30, sub-section (3). After the word "respect" in line 46 to insert the words "or if any person makes a complaint which, in the opinion of the Controller, is frivolous."
As the section stands, it provides for the punishment of a person who makes a false or misleading statement in complaining of overcharges, but it does not deal with the case of a person who makes what is probably a frivolous complaint. Now, an utterly frivolous complaint may cause a great deal of damage and inconvenience to people and there is no redress. One of the dangers of this Bill is that if unfounded charges are made—and really that is what frivolous charges are—there is no real punishment although these may be brought for the purpose of damaging the trader. For these reasons and, also, for the reason that a trader ought not to be put to trouble and expense, and probable damage, due to frivolous complaints, I am strongly of opinion that those who make them ought to be punished. The way the amendment does that is that if any person makes a complaint which, in the opinion of the Controller, is frivolous and if the Controller is of opinion that it is frivolous he can certify and it can be dealt with as an offence under the Act.
It would seem in my opinion rather clear that a person who makes a complaint which in the opinion of the Controller is frivolous would be liable to a fine. The Act provides that the Controller need not act upon a complaint which he regards as frivolous, but it seems to me that that is a sufficient safeguard. If a person makes a frivolous charge for the purpose of damaging a trader and the Controller does not act nothing need happen, and that is the end of it.
But it should not be the end of it.
Undoubtedly, what I feel is that I would like to make it unprofitable for anyone who acts in that way. But it seems to me much severer, and a departure from the principle that the Senator advocated earlier, that a person should be liable to a fine of £10 in the judgment of the Controller. I think that is going further than we ought to go. I think so long as it is provided that if a person makes a misleading statement, based upon statements that are inaccurate, that he can be punished, we are going far enough. If a complaint is frivolous the Controller need not act upon it and that ends the matter. I do not think it is possible to devise a system that would prevent hardship while at the same time enabling punishment to be inflicted upon persons.
It is the experience of everyone who has had any dealings with this question of endeavouring to get evidence in regard to prices, that it is most difficult to get ordinary citizens to come and give evidence in connection with this question of overcharging. It is almost impossible to get them to come forward. If this amendment is inserted you may bid good-bye to any complaints. There is no poor man or woman who is going to take the risk of satisfying the Commission that the complaint is not frivolous. It is not frivolous in their opinion, but it may be another thing in the opinion of the Controller, and they are not going to take the risk of incurring a fine of £10. If this amendment is inserted you may bid good-bye to any effective control.
I think there is something in the Minister's criticism in regard to the words "in the opinion of the Controller." I do not at all agree that the fine should be £10; that is the maximum amount. It might mean that there would be no fine at all. I agree that the court may, without considering the Controller at all, have to convict. While there is reason for dealing with the word "frivolous," and the Minister considers it necessary, I think if you had the word "frivolous" with the words "false and misleading" it would meet the case. There is a genuine fear, and I share it, that in certain districts this Bill may be used to attack certain traders for reasons quite apart from the genuine reasons in the Bill. There need not be any fear that the court will decide the matter is frivolous unless it feels perfectly clear that the object of the complaint was to damage a particular person, and that the complaint could not be justified on proper grounds. Take a complaint arising really out of a mistake that has been made. We all know in practice where important mistakes have been made. I know a case where an assistant, in making out a bill, put the figure 1, which should have gone into the shilling column, into the pound column, and gave a receipt that if produced would prove that the sum of £1 was paid for an article which should only cost a shilling. Where it was pretty clear that it was a mistake a complaint based upon that would be frivolous. I do not give that as an ordinary case, but still one that would happen. If there are frivolous complaints we should provide a penalty against them. I do not suggest £10, but you might include it by having the penalty from a certain figure up to £10.
In small places where every little tittle-tattle is known, if it becomes known that a complaint is made against a trader that in itself would do him damage. There should be some special point for this complaint. I can see many cases where damage would be done to shopkeepers simply because certain people had malice against them—possibly political malice. I think this is a very reasonable amendment and that something ought to be done to meet it.
I recognise the weight of the Minister's objection to grounding this offence upon the opinion of the Controller. I agree that is not a wise thing to do, but I do suggest that the amendment suggested by Senator Douglas would get rid of a problem if you add after the word "frivolous" the other words and let the group decide it.
I am inclined to think that there is some misapprehension about the procedure. If the complaint is false or misleading, it is already provided for. If the complaint is true, can it be said to be frivolous? If it is of little account, and therefore held to be frivolous, what harm is there? The complaint is to be made to the Controller, and unless you are arguing that the Controller may be prejudiced against a particular shopkeeper, having received a complaint which may be frivolous and which he holds to be frivolous, the illustration given by Senator Miss Browne has no validity at all. The persons who are going to make complaints and create bad odour in a locality about a particular shopkeeper do not write to the Controller about it, and unless the Controller publishes it, no harm is done.
They publish it themselves.
Well, if they publish it themselves, this Bill does not come into operation at all. They may be liable to slander and libel and all the rest.
No, there is no liability for slander.
Well, whatever the consequences of lying may be. This Bill will not either help or prevent a malicious person making complaints of a frivolous character about a shopkeeper in a particular town. It has nothing to do with that—that is, as far as I can read it—where a complaint is made to the Controller in writing. If that complaint is frivolous, the Controller tears it up and throws it in the waste-paper basket and nobody else hears anything about it. Senator Douglas shakes his head as though that were a mis-statement.
I cannot believe that a person making a frivolous complaint is going to keep it secret.
Then the position is that the customer is going to make a complaint of a frivolous character regarding a certain transaction.
That is an unfounded complaint really—not necessarily supported by false statements.
An unfounded charge or complaint; and they are going to take advantage of this Bill to publish the fact that they have made a charge of this kind, and that because of this Act appointing a Controller to whom the complaint may be sent, it will give an occasion to publish the complaint broadcast. It seems to me that this provision is not needed. There is no need for penal clauses of this kind in the Bill because the Controller is going to squelch any frivolous complaint.
Then you ought to delete the whole section.
I think that Senator Johnson and I are looking at the matter from a totally different point of view. I stated—I think on the Second Stage—that I did not think this kind of complaint would have a serious effect in a large city such as Dublin but that in the case of a country shopkeeper, and I am quite convinced of this, a story running around that twenty or any number of people had sent in complaints against a shopkeeper would unfairly and definitely injure that shopkeeper, and would injure him very much more than any whisper such as that So-and-So had been overcharged. The fact that it gradually got out afterwards—and the fact that it got out gradually would make it all the worse—either that the Controller had done nothing or that he had eventually decided that the price was reasonable, would do a great deal of harm and it would take a great deal of time to catch up on that. As a matter of fact, there is nothing — hardly anything — more damaging to your business than to have one of your assistants inadvertently charge too much. If that gets round considerable damage is done.
I have no doubt at all in my own mind that there is in this Bill—I hope it will not be used—the possibility of material damage being done, particularly to a small shopkeeper, by the lodging of a complaint, and that it will take a long time to get it back. The fact that the Controller has done nothing will not be sufficient proof at all. In fact, the person concerned will have no way of proving that the complaint is frivolous or unfounded because it will be some time, naturally, before he will hear from the Controller. That is answering Senator Johnson's argument. I think that it does no harm at all to add that word "frivolous" to the two words provided here. You might have some mischief-maker going around doing this kind of thing, and I think that the court ought to have some method of dealing with that. The fine can be nominal. There is a possibility of a fine of £10, as it stands. In some cases, it would hardly be known, except by the Controller. I think that there is a weapon left out there and that it ought to be provided for.
I am not at all convinced by the illustration given by Senator Douglas. Suppose the assistant in a shop overcharges a customer, and suppose that customer makes a complaint. How can that complaint be regarded as frivolous? It would be absurd.
I never said anything of the kind.
I understood the Senator to say that. If not, what did he say in relation to an overcharge inadvertently by one of his assistants? Of course, the Senator did say it.
I am afraid I shall have to repeat what I said. I said that, even if there were no complaints, the very fact of an overcharge having been made, even inadvertently, was damaging to a man's business. The fact that a firm had overcharged was bad business and damaging, and it was a thing that they could not do without running the risk of damage, and the mere rumour that such a charge was made would injure them. I am perfectly convinced that it would injure them to have talk of their having overcharged being spread around.
The fact that his assistant has the misfortune to make a mistake gets around, but if the person who is overcharged makes a complaint to the Controller, I do not see how the Controller could regard such a complaint as frivolous. The object of the amendment is this: to hold a threat over small people who buy goods and who may be inclined to think that if they make a complaint they will be liable to a fine of £2 10s. because it is a frivolous complaint. "Frivolous" is a very dangerous word. It has no definite, specific meaning. I do commend the phraseology of this sub-section (3). I think it is a perfect sub-section: "If any person makes in any complaint any statement which is false or misleading in any material respect, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding £10." If any person makes a statement which is true, he certainly should not be liable to any penalty, and the bringing in of the word "frivolous" here is to hold the lash over the unfortunate people in the small streets and the back lanes of the country towns.
I think that the amendment is unnecessary for the reason that the difficulty of getting people to make any complaints under this Bill will be very great. Householders—particularly women, who do most of the buying—will not be inclined to come in and make either frivolous or, unfortunately, any other kind of complaints. I base this statement entirely on the report issued by the recent Food Prices Commission, where they stated that they could not get evidence from the very people in whose interests they were working. That was the complaint of that particular Commission. Therefore I think that to get any complaints at all will be rather an effort, not to speak of these frivolous complaints. You will not get frivolous complaints. You will have very few complaints, if any. I therefore think that the amendment should be withdrawn.
The argument to which we have just listened amounts to this: that, if you want any complaint, you must permit frivolous ones.
No.
I am perfectly willing to withdraw the amendment and put down an amendment of the kind suggested by Senator Douglas—that is, to add to the word "frivolous" the words "false and misleading."
Before the Senator puts in that amendment I suggest that he should read the section.
I should like to put in the suggested amendment, if the House allows me.
Or "frivolous in any respect." That would be a nice amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 30 and 31 agreed to.
SECTION 32.
(1) Whenever a complaint is referred to an inspector under the immediately preceding section, such inspector shall investigate such complaint and when he has completed his investigations shall report the result thereof to the Controller.
(2) For the purposes of an investigation into a complaint an inspector may on production of his authority to act as an inspector require—
(a) the person who made the complaint the subject of such investigation to furnish him with such information relevant to the complaint as he may reasonably require and as is in the power or possession of such person or can be procured without unreasonable expense by such person;
(b) the seller mentioned in such complaint to furnish him with such information relevant to the complaint as he may reasonably require and as is in the power or possession of such seller or can be procured without unreasonable expense by such seller.
(3) If any person refuses or neglects to furnish an inspector with any information lawfully required by him under this section, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
I move amendment 17:—
Section 32, sub-section (2). To delete in lines 7-9 the words "or can be procured without unreasonable expense by such person."
If the House will look at sub-section (2) and the two sub-paragraphs of that, (a) and (b), they will see that in the last two or three lines of each of these there is some question of unreasonable expense coming in. The words are that "for the purposes of an investigation into a complaint an inspector may on production of his authority to act as an inspector require the person who made the complaint (or the seller mentioned in the complaint) the subject of such investigation to furnish him with such information relevant to the complaint as he may reasonably require and as is in the power or possession of such person." And then it goes on to say that he has the power in both cases, both as regards the complainant and the seller, to require that it be procured. The words are:—"or can be procured without unreasonable expense by such person" or "without unreasonable expense by such seller," as the case may be.
You can certainly see the seller there being put to what might be to him quite a lot of expense and I do not see why there should be any question of expense in the matter at all. Surely, the first part of what the inspector may require is quite sufficient: "to furnish him with such information relevant to the complaint as he may reasonably require and as is in the power or possession of such person."
The inspector asks the seller to give him everything in his power or possession to answer his inquiries, but, besides that, the inspector has the power to make him produce other things which he has to procure, it is said here, without unreasonable expense; but in both cases it seems to me to be going too far. Surely, the whole matter could be conducted on the first lines without putting either the complainant or the seller to any other expense. That is what the amendment really is. It seems unreasonable to put that in even though protected by the words "unreasonable expense"; because even reasonable expense involved in getting a thing which he has not got and which will give him at least a great deal of trouble to get, if he produces everything in his power or possession, will be considerably hard. Surely those words ought to be quite sufficient to meet the case.
I agree with this amendment principally because I do not know what the words "unreasonable expense" mean. In the case of the seller I have no doubt that if there is a case against him which is a serious one and which he thinks it worth his while to disprove, he will go to a considerable length to do so and there will be no difficulty at all. But to provide that in the event of procuring something not in his power or possession, which the inspector thinks he could get, and go to the cost of doing so, and then be subject to a fine at the end, seems to me unnecessary. If the seller thinks the charge unfounded and does not want to go to the expense, I think there is no need to provide legally, provided that you have said that he must give such information as the inspector "reasonably requires and as is in the power or possession of the seller." I think that is quite sufficient without the further provision. So far as the person who makes the complaint is concerned, of course it can be said that you are forcing the complainant to give all the information that he can without going to unreasonable expense. Possibly there is a stronger case for making the complainant spend money than the trader. Logically, I think it is better to leave them out in both cases.
Certainly this section as it stands puts a very heavy onus on merchants, and if the Minister is not actually wedded to it I think he ought to accept the modifications suggested by Senator Jameson. Whatever is in a man's possession or in his power he ought to produce, but I can imagine circumstances, especially in big business, where information might be required of a trader. It is in his power to get it certainly, but the getting of it might cost hundreds of pounds. I think there is a good deal of sense in what Senator Jameson has said.
These words were inserted in the Bill after the first draft had been prepared as an additional safeguard for the trader and the complainant. What Senator Comyn has said is quite correct and is an argument in favour of retaining these words. An inspector, for instance, might ask a shopkeeper to make out from his books the day to day prices of certain commodities over a period of five years, to show at the same time the margin of profit which he realised on each sale, and also to prepare a list of the purchase prices of the same commodities over the same period. The preparation of such a return might engage the labour of one man for a period of a month. If the words are deleted the shopkeeper must produce that information and he will be liable to a fine if he fails to do so. The words in the Bill are a safeguard. They were put in for that purpose and I think they should be retained.
I now see the point. It is the word "or" that has caused all the confusion. If the word "and" were in the paragraph instead of "or" it would be clear. The word "and" would safeguard the trader in a reasonable way. I did not understand what the Minister was driving at because of the insertion in the section of the word "or."
I can have an amendment introduced on Report to correct that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 18 not moved.
Section 32 agreed to.
[The Leas-Chathaoirleach took the Chair.]
SECTION 33.
(1) Where a report is made to the Controller by an inspector on a complaint referred to him for investigation and the Controller, after consideration of such report, is of opinion that such complaint is well founded, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) the Controller shall serve on the seller mentioned in such complaint a notice in the prescribed form—
(i) stating the nature of such complaint, and
(ii) stating that in the opinion of the Controller such complaint is well founded, and
(iii) in case such complaint relates to a sale or offering for sale retail, specifying the price which in the opinion of the Controller is a reasonable retail price for the commodity the retail price of which was the subject of such complaint, and
(iv) in case such complaint relates to a sale or offering for sale wholesale, specifying the price which in the opinion of the Controller is a reasonable wholesale price for the commodity the wholesale price of which was the subject of such complaint, and
(v) requiring such seller within twenty-one days after the service of such notice to give to the Controller an undertaking in writing to charge in future a reasonable price for the commodity mentioned in such notice, and
(vi) if such complaint relates to a sale, requiring such seller within ten days after the service of such notice to pay to the complainant the difference between the price the subject of such complaint and the price specified in such notice as the reasonable price;
(5) The Controller may revoke a certificate under this section and thereupon such certificate shall cease to be in force.
(8) Any notice or certificate required by this section to be served on any person may be served by delivering it to such person or by leaving it with a person over sixteen years of age at the premises where such first-mentioned person carries on business, or by sending it by registered post to such first-mentioned person at such premises.
I move amendment 19:—
Section 33, sub-section (1). After the word "founded" in line 23 to insert the words "and if the Controller is satisfied that the price charged by the seller was in excess of the price usually charged by sellers in the immediate neighbourhood."
This amendment is intended to deal with what seems to me to be rather an injustice under Section 4. Under that section, if there is a complaint against a specific trader and the Controller considers that the price is too high, he will then proceed with detailed proceedings which ultimately may lead to a price order in the case of that particular trader. A notice will be sent to him and he will be obliged to sell at the particular price set out. Ultimately, he has the right of appeal on the grounds that the price he is charging is the general price charged and that he wants to have the whole matter investigated by the Commission. It seems to me that if the Controller has satisfied himself that the price charged by a specific trader is the general price prevailing in that neighbourhood he ought not to be obliged to go ahead against that trader, to go through all the machinery provided, because obviously it is not a question of one individual overcharging—it is a question of general overcharging, and should be dealt with in the same way as any other complaint of general overcharging, if proved.
The section as amended would read that if the Controller is of opinion "that such complaint is well-founded and if the Controller is satisfied that the price charged by the seller was in excess of the price usually charged by sellers in the immediate neighbourhood," that then he shall proceed against the individual. What I want to avoid is that the Controller should go through all the machinery laid down in the case of one particular trader if there is general overcharging in that neighbourhood. If there is that general overcharging in the neighbourhood, then the Controller should tackle that, and not an individual.
I think this amendment should not be accepted. The principle on which it has been argued is wrong. Suppose one man commits a crime, is it any defence for him to say that the crime is very prevalent in the district? No. I think the acceptance of the amendment would nullify the whole purpose of the section. It is no answer for a man who has been overcharging for milk or for some other commodity, to say that all the people in his part of the town are charging the same price. They may be all committing the offence, but when one is caught, I think the law requires that he should be dealt with.
What the amendment aims at is this: that if dealers in a certain type of commodity agree to fix a price for it, and while that price may be altogether unreasonable from the point of view of the consumer, they are all to get off scot free simply because they are all in the swim and have been overcharging the public.
Emphatically no.
The Senator argued that the individual should not be attacked. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that dealers in a particular town decide that they are going to charge a certain price for an article of consumption, say bread, during the week beginning on a certain date. If the consumers in that area are of opinion that the price charged is unreasonable, are they to be prevented from lodging a complaint with the Controller against a certain shopkeeper simply because all the shopkeepers there are charging an unreasonable price? Are they to have to wait until the Controller gets information from some other source before he can deal with the whole situation?
I think the two Senators who have just spoken have not read the Bill or, if they have, I suggest that they have not read it carefully. Senator Comyn is horrified at the idea because one man commits a crime and the crime is prevalent in that area that he should not be punished. If he would read the Bill he would find that the Minister, unfortunately, if there be any analogy which I do not admit, has accepted the principle in the Bill, and the only difference is the exact point where it comes in. Under sub-section (2), paragraph (b) of Section 33, the Senator will find that in a case where the Controller makes and publishes a price certificate for an individual trader, that individual can appeal to the Commission to have the whole matter dealt with on the grounds that the price complained of is the general price in the neighbourhood. That is perfectly right and reasonable. It is not with the question of justice for the individual that I am so much concerned as that of ordinary commonsense in government. If there is general overcharging in a district, why go through all the machinery against one individual? If the Price Controller is satisfied that the price charged by an individual trader is the general price charged for a particular commodity in that area, then I suggest he should submit the matter to the Commission. In that case the procedure for general overcharging would be put into operation under the other sections of the Bill. I think it is silly—I use the word deliberately—to force the Controller——
Frivolous, in fact.
Frivolous is a dangerous word and I would not like to use it even though Senator Comyn has, but as I was saying I think it is silly to force the Controller to go against that individual if he knows that the price charged by him is the general price charged in that neighbourhood. I suggest that he should cut out all the machinery provided for proceeding against the individual and consult with the Commission as to whether the matter is one on which there should be a general investigation.
It is quite clear that this amendment introduces a new factor in the determination of what is an unreasonably high price, namely, the general level of prices in a neighbourhood.
No.
If the price charged by the individual shopkeeper is determined to be an unreasonable price, in the sense that it is too high, then no action is to be taken against that shopkeeper on the ground that it is the normal price in that neighbourhood. That is what the amendment aims at. I think that while it is undoubtedly up to that shopkeeper to plead in his defence that he was charging the normal price charged in the neighbourhood it is at a later stage that he should do that. The introduction of the amendment in this part of the Bill would suggest that if that was established then, although it was clear that the price was an unreasonable one, the matter should drop there. That is a thing that I think should not happen. What the Bill provides for is that in such circumstances the section is put into operation against the individual shopkeeper, but before anything can be done to him which would be likely to damage him in any way he can appeal to the Commission on the one ground on which an appeal is open to him, namely, that his price, deemed to have been unreasonable, is, in fact, the normal price. The Commission will then be required to examine the matter. If they decide that what the shopkeeper alleges is correct, then they are required to carry out a normal price investigation, and come to the point ultimately whether they may have to consider recommending the fixing of a price for the commodity in the neighbourhood.
It should be quite clear that the individual shopkeeper is not exonerated from the charge of having made an unreasonable profit or fixed an unreasonable price for his goods merely because other people are doing the same thing. That, I suggest, is contained in the amendment. The amendment would introduce an entirely new factor into the Bill and would run contrary to it. It is true that the shopkeeper, if he has to meet a charge of having charged an unreasonable price, and if that is proved against him, should be entitled to plead that the general level of prices in the neighbourhood requires investigation; that an investigation into those prices should take place. Nevertheless, it should be clear that he is not exonerated from guilt on that account. It is clear that he has in fact committed an offence under the Bill, even though punishment for the offence may be deferred until it is going to be applied generally.
The Minister, in replying to me, has fallen into an error which I did not hear him commit previously, but it is one that is commonly used in connection with this Bill. He used the words "fault,""exoneration," and "unreasonable profit." I would like to call attention to the fact that there is nothing whatever in the amendment about unreasonable profit, or about an unreasonably high price. That is not necessarily a fault. There is no question of exoneration. A shopkeeper may be charging an unreasonably high price for a commodity because he cannot get it at a reasonable price. The suggestion of necessary guilt is, I think, a mistake, and explains to some extent why the Minister does not understand the point I am trying to make in connection with the amendment. He says that a man is not exonerated by the fact that he is charging a price which is being generally charged in the neighbourhood. I quite agree that he is in the same position as the other traders, but I will not agree that there is a question of exoneration. He is in the same position as the other traders, and I suggest that he should be. But under the section you single him out, with possible damage to him alone, on a certain charge. It will be some time before the inspector will have gone to his shop and held an investigation into the charge made against him. The trader may appeal, one of the grounds of his appeal being that the price he is charging is the general price charged in the immediate neighbourhood. The principal matter for investigation by the Commission will, in the first place, be that the general price charged in that area is too high. If such a charge is made, then it should be sent to the Commission for general investigation. But in the case of an individual, because of some haphazard complaint, he finds himself specifically attacked and damaged, and at least some months will elapse before the Commission will have sat and dealt with the whole commodity. Possibly my amendment is a little too strong, in so far as I provide that the Controller will only proceed if he is satisfied that the price charged by the seller was in excess of the price usually charged, but, if the Minister will agree to amend the Bill by giving the Controller some option whereby, if he has reason to believe or is satisfied that such is the case, he can immediately refer it to the Commission himself without waiting for the man to appeal, my point would be met.
It is difficult, in a detailed Bill of this kind, to make oneself quite clear. The Minister clearly has two opinions in his mind. He has it in his mind that if an individual alone is overcharging, that individual shall be dealt with alone, and he has it in his mind that, if a number of persons are overcharging they should be dealt with by the Commission and by a general price order. My point is that if the Controller finds that a number of people are involved, although the specific charge is against only one, he should have the option of putting the whole machinery into motion at once, and dealing with the whole matter instead of dealing with it, as he must do now, by first attacking the individual, waiting 14 days for the individual to appeal and then sending it to the Commission. It is unnecessary to make that obligatory if the Controller knows, and I suggest to the Minister that, if he does not like the exact wording of my amendment, he should give the Controller the option, where he is satisfied that it was a general price, of making a request to the Commission to investigate it before he attacks the individual. Otherwise, I would press my amendment because I think there is a definite blank there which might operate unfairly against the individual.
There is something to be said for providing that, if the Controller is satisfied that the particular price was not charged, shall I say, maliciously, but because of the general price prevailing in the neighbourhood, he should, instead of proceeding against the individual, carry out an investigation into the price in the neighbourhood. That is not what the amendment provides for. It merely provides that the matter ends if the Controller believes that the unreasonably high price charged by one individual was also being charged by other individuals.
That was not my intention, and I thought I had made it clear. A number of the amendments I have here were not followed out to their full logical conclusion because, until the principle had been adopted, I thought it useless to go on with the following amendment.
If the Senator will leave his amendment over for the next day, I will look into the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 20 not moved.
This amendment will depend on the matter which the Minister has promised to look into before next stage. I move amendment No. 21:—
Section 33, sub-section (1). To delete in line 41 the words "twenty-one" and to substitute therefor the word "seven."
This is simply a matter of whether 21 days is too long a period to allow to elapse. Sub-section (1) says:—
(1) Where a report is made to the Controller by an inspector on a complaint referred to him for investigation and the Controller, after consideration of such report, is of opinion that such complaint is well founded, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) the Controller shall serve on the seller mentioned in such complaint a notice in the prescribed form—
(i) stating the nature of such complaint, and
(ii) stating that in the opinion of the Controller such complaint is well founded, and
(iii) in case such complaint relates to a sale or offering for sale retail, specifying the price which in the opinion of the Controller is a reasonable retail price for the commodity the retail price of which was the subject of such complaint, and
(iv) in case such complaint relates to a sale or offering for sale wholesale, specifying the price which in the opinion of the Controller is a reasonable wholesale price for the commodity the wholesale price of which was the subject of such complaint, and
(v) requiring such seller within twenty-one days after the service of such notice to give to the Controller an undertaking in writing to charge in future a reasonable price.
To give a seller three weeks in which to continue an unreasonable price seems to me to be unnecessarily long. If it is a case of a man simply adjusting his price list, seven days, I suggest, is quite long enough, and to allow a seller to continue to charge unreasonably for three weeks would require more justification than I can see for it. I suggest that seven days is ample, if, indeed, you do not say "immediately on receipt of this notice."
I should like to say, before the discussion goes any further, that this section in the Bill, as originally introduced in the Dáil, did not contain sub-section (2) which was inserted by way of an official amendment later. In the original Bill, 21 days was the period fixed in paragraphs (v) and (vi) and, when sub-section (2) was introduced, it provided for another 14 days before a certificate could be issued. We moved to reduce the 21 days in the sub-section to ten days, but, through a printing error in the amendment sheet in the Dáil, the amendment was only accepted on Report Stage in relation to paragraph (vi) and we could not get agreement amongst the members of the Dáil to allow us to repair the printing error in relation to paragraph (v), so that the Bill came from the Dáil with 21 days in one paragraph and ten in the other. It is quite clear that the same period must be prescribed in both paragraphs, because the next paragraph says: "If such seller complies with the requirements of such notice." If he does not comply, the rest follows on. Of course, he has ceased to comply or has, in fact, complied with the requirements of the notice within ten days by the time paragraph (vi) comes into operation, so that there is no necessity for the Controller to wait for 21 days. It is obvious that a man will not give an undertaking, if he does not think he has overcharged, and will not agree to refund the amount overcharged, so I would ask that the 21 days in paragraph (vi) be reduced to ten days as in paragraph (v).
I think that ten days is somewhat short. In the case of a charge against an individual who admits it, if he has any sense and wants to look after his business, he will agree in one day. The time is only for a different purpose. I can assure the House that any trader, who has common sense and admits a charge, will get it put right as quickly as he possibly can in his own interest, but, if he has the feeling, as some traders have, that the price he is charging is high, but that he cannot help it, and if he wants to consult with others to see whether they should take the necessary steps to attack what they think is the source of the higher charge, he really must be given a reasonable time.
He has 24 days as the Bill stands.
Only when he is threatened with an order, and any individual is going to think a good deal before he refuses to carry out a request of the Controller. So far as I am concerned, I would prefer it if you gave him longer then, and, possibly, if necessary, a rather shorter time after, because the serious step will be when he refuses to carry out an order of the Controller. He will know, if he does so, that a price order will be fixed without any doubt, and there is, I admit, ample time then, but I think that it is in the earlier stage you want the 21 days, even if we have to shorten it afterwards. You will certainly want 14 days, because one trader will not fight this thing alone— a very big one might, but no small trader is going to fight it alone. He is only going to do it when he is satisfied that other traders agree that the price is right and ought to be fought, and a certain time must be allowed for consultation.
I am inclined to think that the seven days suggested by Senator Johnson is too short a period, particularly in this country, where there are only three postal deliveries a week in some parts of the country to which the Act might be applied. Ten days appears to be a reasonable period. The original proposal was 21 days when we introduced the section. That was cut down to ten, so that the total became 24, and it would be 48 days if the amendment were accepted. A period of 48 days might conceivably elapse before the Controller had decided, on the report of his inspector, that an act of profiteering had taken place. There is some misunderstanding about that, because the investigator's report would have to show that the price charged by a retailer was unreasonable having regard—and this would be taken into account—to the circumstances, including the price paid by him. If the Controller decided that such an act had taken place, 48 days, that is, well over a month, would elapse before the punishment would fall on the head of the offender if, in fact, any punishment fell on his head, because it seems to me that there would be very few traders who would not be able to bring themselves into line in some way and avoid the punishment—as they would be most anxious to do—and the punishment in that case is only the publication of a certificate. It seems to me that ten days, which provides for over three weeks elapsing, is a reasonable period.
May I be allowed to alter the period in my amendment to ten days?
Permission granted.
Might I also, on that section, ask the Minister what it means to give an undertaking to charge a reasonable price?
It means precisely what it says. It is, I am prepared to admit, a flaw in the Bill. It seems to me that you could contemplate an unscrupulous shopkeeper charging prices double what he should charge, having a complaint made against him, having that complaint investigated and getting out of the difficulty by promising never again to offend, and then going out and offending again and letting the machinery start all over again. The shopkeeper doing that, however, would, I think, be taking a risk, and what we hope to achieve by that is that by representation we will be able to prevent shopkeepers charging excessive prices, and that we will not have to resort to any punitive methods, until it has been shown that private representation is not going to achieve any good result. Consequently, although I will admit that that section is very wide as it stands, and gives a shopkeeper broad road by which he can escape the effects of his act, I think it is preferable to have it that way.
Amended amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 22:—
Section 33, sub-section (1). To delete all from and including the word "and" in line 45 down to and including the word "price" in line 51.
Paragraph (vi) of the sub-section provides for the repayment by the profiteer to the purchaser whom he had overcharged of the difference between what the purchaser paid and the reasonable price he ought to have paid. In my opinion, that will either work unfairly or it will not work at all. Cases of individual profiteering will be found, I think, to be extremely rare. Probably 90 per cent of the cases of overcharging are in respect of overcharging which is general in a particular neighbourhood, probably due to a multiplicity of shops. At any rate, they are not cases of individual overcharging but of overcharging which prevails in a particular neighbourhood. If a complaint is made against a trader in a neighbourhood in which everybody in that trade is overcharging, and if he is convicted, I do not think it is fair that he should be punished in the way of having to pay back his ill-gotten gains, and that all the other people should get off. That will be the general case. In the case of the individual profiteer who is the only one guilty in the neighbourhood, it might be all very well, but, even in that case, it would not, in my opinion, be possible to carry it into effect. The provision is:—
(vi) if such complaint relates to a sale, requiring such seller within ten days after the service of such notice to pay to the complainant the difference between the price the subject of such complaint and the price specified in such notice as the reasonable price;
That creates what is known to the law as a statutory debt. It is not a debt that arises from contract and if a single profiteer who ought to be hit declines to comply with the notice to pay back to the customer his ill-gotten gains, how are you going to enforce it? You cannot enforce it in the District Court, because a statutory debt is not permissible. There is no jurisdiction in the District Court to sue for a statutory debt. Prima facie it must be sued for in the High Court. Fancy an action in the High Court for a few pence, a few shillings or a few pounds. It is not worth it. I suggest that the section would be better with this amendment.
What Senator Brown has said is remarkable—that it is not fair to make a man who overcharges pay the amount of the overcharge back to the complainant. The reason why it is not fair is not because it is not just, but because it is not full justice, because all the other people who have overcharged are not required to pay back. That is a very curious argument. There must be some inducement to some person to come forward and to make a complaint. The most reasonable inducement is that the person who makes the complaint, if it is well-founded, gets back the amount of the overcharge. That is fair, that is justice. It is not full justice, because full justice would be to compel that person to pay back to every individual to whom he sold the commodity the amount of the overcharge. That would be full justice. This is a measure of justice. In regard to the other objection made by Senator Brown, with his great legal skill, I admit that this does create a statutory debt which, probably, cannot be sued for in the District Court but it can be sued for in other courts.
Yes.
The poor man cannot go there.
In this case it is the rich man who will have to pay the costs.
Judgment for 5/- in the High Courts.
Judgment for 5/- and costs. The man who overcharges will have to pay the costs, and rather than pay the costs he will repay what he ought not to have charged, the amount that he wrongly got from the unfortunate man who went in to buy goods from him. Supposing there was to be an amendment on the lines suggested by Senator Brown, it ought to be: "And if not paid may be sued for as a debt in the District Court." These words could be put into the section. The arguments adduced by Senator Brown afford no reason whatever why the main provisions of the sub-section should not remain.
I think if this part of the Bill only dealt with small retail transactions there would be a good deal of force in what Senator Brown argued, but it might cover a whole transaction and might cover charges made by people who have a monopoly. For instance, it might deal with the price of manures sold to farmers—to Senator Miss Browne, for instance—and there might be a general charge all over the country by that particular firm which was unreasonable. If it could be shown that there was, in fact, an unreasonably high charge paid by farmers for the manures, surely there is some reason in asking that there should be a refund of the overcharge.
The discussion so far does not seem to have got to the real objection to paragraph (vi). I will not go into the legal points between Senator Comyn and Senator Brown because I do not understand them. Senator Comyn said the real object was to have an inducement to a person to make a complaint.
On a point of explanation I did not say that was the real object. The real object was to do justice between people. It might have the effect of inducing people to come forward.
I apologise to Senator Comyn if I misquoted him in any way. Quite conceivably this provision will work out unfairly, and I doubt if it will achieve the purpose that certain Senators require. If it was a simple matter of an individual overcharging in one case I should not very much quarrel with the provision. That is not the case. The Minister is to consider between now and the Report Stage certain representations that I made to him. As the Bill stands the Controller must put these provisions into effect and order that the amount be repaid, irrespective of the exact grounds. Let some Senators get the idea out of their heads that it is a question of profiteering. It is not. It is a question of the price being unreasonably high. If it were a question of profiteering I would have no objection whatever to having the money paid back. Senators seem to think that the Bill deals only with profiteering. It deals with prices.
The Senator is the only one who introduced the term "excessive profits" in his amendment.
I admit that high prices might be due to excessive profits. If this referred to an isolated case I would not have any great objection. The section is to be put into effect irrespective of the grounds of the high prices. There is an even greater objection, and that is that a trader against whom there is a clear case of overcharging might repay the difference. I think in certain cases that will be done—not necessarily because he is fair-minded, but because he will find that it is wise for him to do so. This power in the complainant to get his money back—and he must get it back if the case is made—will, I think, be unfair in certain districts. A man may go to a shopkeeper and say: "If you do not repay me so much out of what I paid you for an article last week I will make a complaint against you." A shopkeeper will go a considerable length rather than have a complaint made—even though it is an unfair complaint—because I am absolutely convinced it would injure him. I have no doubt whatever that it will injure a shopkeeper if a complaint is made against him. As Senator Comyn pointed out, this provision gives an inducement which is not necessary, and which might easily be abused. For that reason I am going to vote in favour of deleting it. I do not think you are going to have as much trouble in getting bona fide complaints, after the Bill is law, as some people believe. The work of the former Commission on Prices was different. It was a general inquiry into prices, and people were reluctant to come forward. It is quite unnecessary to have this provision for the purpose of giving an inducement. Although one does not like to suggest it, it might easily lead to blackmail as this particular power might be very easily mis-used.
I had not the privilege of hearing the earlier debate, but looking at the section it does not appear that the provisions of paragraph (vi) are mandatory. The seller can say "No, I refuse to refund," and then there is put into operation all the subsequent very elaborate procedure in the latter part of the sub-section. It states that if the seller does not comply with the requirements of such notice the Controller will proceed to issue a price certificate, which can only be done after very elaborate investigation and further inquiry. I may be wrong there. I do not think so. The obligation to refund can be evaded by refusal. Then follows the very elaborate procedure which is never going to work.
[The Cathaoirleach resumed the Chair.]
Senator Douglas said that if an individual case was affected he would not have objected. As I read the section it is only the complainant will get a refund. The fact that a customer complains to the Controller that he believes he was overcharged for a certain article, and that the Controller, on investigation, is satisfied that the complaint was justified, and that there was overcharging——
No, too high a price.
It means the same thing.
No.
I make the Senator a present of the difference. After being satisfied that there was overcharging, the Controller informs the seller that the difference should be refunded. Is not that fair and reasonable? What hardship is inflicted on anyone? The only person who will be entitled to a refund will be the person who made the complaint. He will get the difference between what is considered to be a fair price and the price he was charged. I do not see where any difficulty will arise. It is only common justice that if a person proves a case before the Controller, having gone to all that trouble, he should get the difference between the fair price and the price he was charged for the article.
I am not going to argue the matter further. If a complaint is made under paragraph (iv), and if the Controller considered that the price charged was unreasonably high, and serves notice for repayment of the difference, what is to happen if 1,000 people go around to the shops and serve notices? Can they be delayed pending a full inquiry into prices? I do not think they can. It seems that the Controller must investigate each case separately and go ahead with the order. If it concerned a single case I would not object. It seems to me that when it is the general price is too high, and that you order one person to pay back, at a time when the whole matter should be investigated, you will have everyone claiming their money back and you will have chaos. It seems that the Controller cannot do for Seán what he will do for someone else, and that there is no limit.
If shopkeepers or firms sell certain articles at an unreasonably high price and if someone has the courage to come forward and challenge their action, by lodging a complaint, if the Controller considers that the complaint was justified and orders a refund of the difference, is it wrong if other members of the community who have been fleeced—perhaps because of the activities of a ring—make a complaint and get a refund of the overcharges? I do not think it is.
I think that the case against this paragraph, as it stands, is that regarded from one point of view it is retrospective legislation. At the same time I think it should stand. The only point which struck me, arising out of the discussion, in respect of which some amendment might be necessary is that we should ensure that where a complaint has been investigated against a particular shopkeeper in respect of a particular commodity, and the complaint is found to be justified when this procedure is adopted, the Controller should not investigate a complaint relating to a sale by the same shopkeeper of the same commodity at a date earlier than the date of the complaint investigated.
Or sale by any other shopkeeper.
Any other shopkeeper in the same vicinity perhaps. I mean that the only complaints that would arise for investigation must be complaints of a later date than that which is investigated. I think that is reasonable. Otherwise you might have people claiming refunds for a number of years and the Controller required to carry out a separate investigation in each case because, of course, it is clear that the only thing that the seller is required to do is to make a refund in the one single case which was brought to the notice of the Controller. He could not be required by the Controller to refund in other cases. The Controller could not act unless there was an investigation and an inspector had furnished a report. There is only the one case in respect of which the seller could be made to give a refund. I agree he should be protected against the possibility of other complaints arising immediately in respect of sales that took place prior to the date of the sale investigated. I think an amendment could be devised on these lines and I am prepared to consider the matter. I think, that subject to that, the paragraph should stand. The whole proceeding would be meaningless without it. The mere fact that an investigation is carried out and a report is made shows that the complaint is well founded. Paragraphs (i), (ii), (iv), and (v) inflict no hardship on anybody. The other part of the section only comes into operation in the event of these things being done.
I think the Minister will want to make a specific provision to cover what he says. In Section 23 you have an investigation into prices, and under another section a maximum price can be fixed. As far as I can see there is nothing to prevent any person applying to have a refund immediately from every shopkeeper if he can prove that he was overcharged.
The statement made by Senator Douglas and purported to be answered by Senator Farren raises a most alarming question. I shall tell you what it is. Suppose a merchant has overcharged and a man comes forward and makes a complaint, and the Controller finds that there has been an overcharge, let us say on the 1st of the month. He makes his finding, and that finding gets known. Is it possible that every person who bought commodities in that shop or any other shop before the 1st of the month, and made no complaint, as a result of the finding of the Controller can come and make claims against merchants?
They can ask for another investigation as the Bill stands.
That is a thing that should be provided against, we all think. It would lead to endless confusion and endless investigation. I think it is only fair that no man should be allowed to come forward with a complaint after he knows the decision.
That is right.
The Minister has left to take part in a Division in the other House, but if we agree on that point we shall bring it before him when he returns.
I think the Minister has already agreed to look into it.
I want to press on the Minister's notice and the notice of the House the importance of looking at this part of the Bill, not merely as a matter of retail trading—of purchases and complaints in regard to over-charging—but as a protection also of the shopkeeper on the one hand against the manufacturer or the importer, and the protection, shall I say, of the farmer buying considerable quantities of goods. Within my own experience I have known not infrequently of manufacturers, merchants and wholesalers taking particular advantage of both farmers and traders in specific areas, because there was no effective competition in those areas. As long as the trader or the farmer was in a tight difficulty, an excessive price was charged. This Bill, particularly this part of it, is a protection against that kind of overcharging. In my own view this paragraph (vi) is a distinct advantage if it is retained to ensure that perhaps £5, £10, £15 or £20 overcharged in a large bill would have to be refunded. It is distinctly to the advantage of the large purchaser. The shopkeeper, the farmer or even the creamery is put in a position of protection under this Bill. It is not proper to think of this part of the Bill as merely a matter of retail prices as between shopkeepers and consumers.
Amendment, by leave, deferred to Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 23:—
Section 33, sub-section (1). To delete lines 2-5 inclusive.
The question of publication is the matter which I wish to raise under this amendment. If a seller does not comply with the requirements of a notice, a certificate has to be made by the Controller stating what is a reasonable retail price and a copy of such certificate is to be served on the seller. There is then a further sub-section which states that the Controller shall "publish a copy of such certificate in a newspaper or newspapers circulating in the district where the commodity, the price of which was the subject of such complaint, was sold or offered for sale." The publication of such a matter in a newspaper in the district where a man resides is a very serious thing and might inflict a great deal of injury on the seller. I should like to ask the Minister what is the nature of the publication. Is it merely to be the publication of a certificate or are names to be mentioned? If it is merely a question of publishing a copy of the certificate, containing the price which the Controller thinks should be charged in that district, the sub-section might probably be defended. If it is going to give the details of the case and the man's name is mentioned, it does seem unnecessary and might inflict very great hardship. I should like to have some information as to the nature of the publication, but as the Minister is not here I desire to leave the amendment over to the Report Stage.
The Minister will probably be back before the amendment is disposed of. I think that if the Senator looks at the bottom of page ten he will find that it is quite clear that the Controller may make a certificate certifying a price which in the opinion of the Controller is a reasonable retail price to be charged by the seller. That is a certificate for one individual alone. Errors may arise even under the best Controllers and to publish a man's name in the local papers is an attempt to put him out of business or very little short of it. If the Controller's certificate is not carried out, the man should be prosecuted and fined, but to have his name published in a newspaper as an obligation under the Act is a sort of blackmail to my mind.
I submit that this amendment should be postponed until the Minister returns. I presume he is coming back again. My reason for saying so is that from my knowledge of legal forms, I cannot visualise a certificate under this section which would not contain the name of the seller. I think it would be almost essential that the name of the seller should appear in the certificate. I agree that that would be a tremendous penalty, far and away greater than any fine which could be inflicted upon him. We could provide that the certificate should contain merely a statement of the price and that the name of the seller should be excluded from any publication of the certificate. I think the Minister probably ought to look into that, to see whether he could have a form of certificate leaving out the name. If the name of the merchant who overcharged has to be published in the local paper, it would go a long way towards putting a merchant out of business. That might be as injurious to the poor man who is the purchaser as to the merchant himself.
Would not the reference "subject to the provisions of the next following sub-section" have something to say to this argument, because if no action is taken under the provisions of the following sub-section it is obvious that the seller is defying the Controller, and in these circumstances probably publication is necessary? That is how it strikes me without a very full examination of the matter.
It appears to me that this penal clause regarding publication in the newspapers does not come into operation if the person is reasonable and complies with the requirements laid down under the previous sub-sections. One of these sub-sections states:—
If such seller complies with the requirements of such notice the Controller shall take no further steps in relation to such complaint.
It is only in the event of his refusing to do these things that the penal clause can come into operation. If he defies the Controller, surely in the interests of the public he should be made pay for it. If a man persists in defying the Controller, after the Controller has fixed a fair price, he should be penalised, but if the man gives an undertaking to carry out the provisions of the fair price certificate there will be nothing further about it. There will be no publicity or anything else. And if a man persists, surely the law must provide some penal clause to deal with that man.
Surely a merchant has a right to go to the Commission and appeal and say the Controller is quite wrong. It is the assertion of a legal right, and, until it is found by the Commission to have been wrong, I think nothing injurious to him should be done by publication or otherwise. Paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 33 says "if such seller does not comply with the requirements of such notice," that is if he does not comply with certain duties set out in the Bill certain matters take place, including the publication of the certificate; but the certificate might be published before the appeal is heard.
No.
Well, then the other question that arises is this. If the certificate is made there is provision here for publication; but what the Seanad wants to know is whether the certificate will contain the name of the seller as part of the certificate, or whether the certificate cannot be devised fixing prices without giving the names of the sellers.
Originally it was intended that the certificate would contain the name of the seller. It was intended as a definite punishment for a seller who charged an unreasonably high price, and who refused to give an undertaking not to do the same again, or who failed, in any of the ways open to him under the Act, to make amends, and, consequently, as it were, came up for punishment. The first punishment was publishing the fact that a certificate had been issued against him. Having gone into that with great care, and after representations upon that score, I am somewhat inclined to think, perhaps, that it would be an undue hardship that the name of the firm should be published. It is clear if you do not publish the name of the firm you may, perhaps, be letting somebody in for some very serious form of punishment upon this. The procedure is, a complaint is made, is investigated and found to be well-founded. The seller can then either refund the amount of the overcharge, and give an undertaking not to make any overcharges in the future and that matter ends. Alternatively, he could appeal to the Commission to investigate the general level of prices paid for those commodities in the neighbourhood in which he lives. If the Commission does investigate and finds against him there the matter ends. If he refuses to refund the amount of the overcharge after the Commission decides that there is an overcharge, then the certificate may be published. It is a question for determination whether, in view of that happening, the punishment of the individual shopkeeper, who overcharged and refused to refund and offended again, should not be to send him to prison, and whether his name should be published with the publication of the certificate. But if subsequent to the issue of the certificate he again overcharges then he becomes liable to a fine or imprisonment. We could contemplate leaving the name out of the certificate, and I am sure many shopkeepers would prefer imprisonment to the publication, and it might be a much greater deterrent. However, it is a matter upon which I have more or less an open mind, whether the certificate should contain the name of the seller or not. When you regard it from one point of view, and give consideration to the various means of escaping the punishment open to the seller, you will see at a later stage publication to be effective should take place. But having regard to the effect that that might have upon the business of the person concerned, possibly out of proportion altogether to the amount of the overcharge or the seriousness of the article concerned, I am inclined to think that after due notice is given in that particular neighbourhood of what is a reasonable price, then, that seller and all others would become liable to a period of imprisonment if they again overcharged for those commodities in that neighbourhood. I am inclined to think at present we should leave that out.
This particular amendment is to delete paragraph (iii), that is to delete the words "publish a copy of such certificate in a newspaper or newspapers circulating in the district where the commodity the price of which was the subject of such complaint was sold or offered for sale."
The whole case is altered now after what the Minister said. I put down an amendment to delete certain words because they might include the name. I take it from what the Minister now said that he will substitute another paragraph for paragraph (iii) in which he will give exact words that will meet my case.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 23 and 24 not moved.
I move amendment 25:—
Section 33, sub-section (5). After the word "section" in line 16 to insert the words "and shall do so if, on representation from the person on whom such certificate has been served, he is satisfied that the wholesale or manufacturers' prices, as the case may be, have been advanced since the order was made."
This deals with the question of revocation of the certificate. There is power to the Controller to revoke a certificate he himself has made. I want to provide that if he is satisfied from representations made to him that the cost that the trader has charged is not excessive he shall not revoke it.
I am prepared to consider that matter and to introduce an amendment on Report dealing with it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move amendment 26:—
Section 33, sub-section (8). To delete in lines 28-30 the words "or by leaving it with a person over sixteen years of age at the premises where such first-mentioned person carries on business."
The documents, with which the certificate in this sub-section deals, are of vital importance to the trader. They involve the right of appeal to the Commission and the penal consequences for acting in contravention of the proposed certificate. Now the mode of service laid down in sub-section (8) is this: "Any notice or certificate required by this section to be served on any person may be served by delivering it to such person or by leaving it with a person over 16 years of age at the premises where such first-mentioned person carries on business...." The object of the amendment is to delete that portion of the mode of service. The third way the sub-section provides for service is "by sending it by registered post to such first-mentioned person at such premises." Now the service on a young person over 16 years of age in a shop is a most objectionable procedure. I do not think that any legal document of any kind ought to be served in a shop, and the service of every legal document, a summons under the Circuit Court or the District Court, has to be served either personally or on some relative of the person in the employment of the person to be served at his residence. I suggest to the Minister that it is only right that the service of these documents, which are just as important as any other legal documents, should not include service on anybody over 16 years of age or who looks to be over 16 years of age in a shop.
I would like to join with Senator Brown in that respect. Seeing that there is provision made for service by registered letter, I think the form of service to which he objects should not be included in the Bill.
I am prepared to agree.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 33, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 34 and 35 agreed to.
SECTION 36.
(1) Where the Commission make a price list report the Minister may, if he so thinks fit, make an order (in this Part of this Act referred to as a display of retail prices order) requiring every person who carries on the business of selling retail, in any area to which such order relates, if the report relates to one scheduled commodity, such scheduled commodity, or, if the report relates to several scheduled commodities, such one or more of such scheduled commodities as the Minister thinks proper and specifies in such order, to display in the manner required by such order at any premises where he carries on such business in such area a list stating the retail price of every scheduled commodity to which such order applies.
(2) The Minister may by order under this sub-section revoke or amend a display of retail prices order.
(3) Every order under this section shall be published in theIris Oifigiúil, and every such order shall specify the date (which shall not be earlier than the date of publication thereof in the Iris Oifigiúil) on which such order is to come into force.
(4) The making of a display of retail prices order shall be prima facie evidence that such order was validly made in all respects.
I move amendment 27:
Section 36, sub-section (5). After the word "than" in line 42 to insert the words "ten days after."
I am prepared to accept that amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 36, as amended, agreed to.
Section 37 agreed to.
SECTION 38.
PART VI.
Manufacturers' Prices for Protected Commodities.
(1) The Minister may, subject to the provisions of the next following sub-section, from time to time send to the Commission a requisition requiring the Commission to investigate the prices charged for any protected commodity which conforms to the specification set out in such request by persons manufacturing such commodity in Saorstát Eireann, and upon receipt of such request the Commission shall make an investigation (in this Part of this Act referred to as a manufacturer's price investigation) in accordance with such requisition.
I move amendment 28:—
Section 38, sub-section (1). After the word "manufacturing" in line 2 to insert the words "or producing."
I put this amendment down to raise the question: what exactly is a manufacture? This covers "food" and there are quite a number of protected commodities besides food. For my part I have something in the nature of a market garden. I do not know whether I would be held to manufacture cabbages or vegetables, which are protected, but if I overcharge, I would be subject to an investigation as if I were a manufacturer. I put down this amendment in order that the Minister might tell us what a manufacture means. Does it exclude something which may be food, but not manufactured in the ordinary sense of the word? I do not know how we stand with regard to every food which is protected but not in the strict sense manufactured.
I shall dodge the question by accepting the amendment.
In that case there are a number of consequential amendments.
Then I shall bring up an amendment on the Report Stage to deal with the whole matter.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 38, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 39.
On the completion of the manufacturer's price investigation in relation to a protected commodity the Commission shall make a report (in this Part of this Act referred to as a manufacturer's price report) to the Minister setting out—
(a) a specification of such commodity;
(b) the movements of the prices of such commodity over a specified period;
(c) whether in the opinion of the Commission such prices are or are not unreasonably high, together with the reasons for such opinion;
(d) their opinion as to whether such prices are influenced by any agreement or combination for interfering with free competition;
(e) if the Commission are of opinion that such prices are unreasonably high—
(i) the opinion of the Commission as to what would be a reasonable price for such commodity,
(ii) their opinion as to the best methods of enforcing a reduction of such prices to a reasonable price,
(iii) if in their opinion a maximum price should be fixed by order of the Minister under this Part of this Act, the area to which such order should apply.
I move amendment 29:—
Section 39. Before paragraph (e) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(e) the price at which the commodity could be obtained by purchase from manufacturers outside Saorstát Eireann if such commodity was not a protected commodity, and if such price is lower than the price charged by manufacturers in Saorstát Eireann the general reasons which are explanatory of the higher price in Saorstát Eireann, and in particular if the price at which such commodity could be obtained from outside Saorstát Eireann is due to lower wages being paid or to the commodity being offered at less than the cost of production.
I dealt with the principal argument in favour of this important section in the debate on the Second Reading. I will not go into details now except to say that after having full investigation into the manufacturers' prices and those published, it seems to me highly desirable that we should have a report on prices for commodities in protected groups. In order that there should be no misunderstanding I want to make it clear that I am not attacking Irish manufactures in this case at all. I think there are some cases where you would be satisfied that the price is the same or substantially the same. There are other cases where Irish manufacturers' prices will be of necessity very high. For that reason I have put in this amendment, partly on a hint gleaned from a speech of the Minister's that there were certain matters that should be considered. If there is to be a report of this kind from the Commission I want to put in a provision that the Commission will show, if they can, what are the reasons for the higher manufacturing prices here if the prices are higher. At any rate, I do think that if you are going to have an inquiry into prices of a protected commodity, the value of that inquiry would be of very little use unless you are prepared to ascertain what the price would be without protection. If that is so, you have also got to show if the prices were below the cost of production elsewhere or below the wages elsewhere; if the circumstances in Continental countries were such that they could be brought in here at a low cost because the whole standard in these countries is low, which we do not want here.
While Senator Douglas was speaking, I read through his proposed amendment, and it means that the Minister is to be constantly reminded of the consequences of protection in this country. Night, noon and morning he is to be told in words, figures and tables what protection costs. He is never to be allowed to forget that. It reminds me of what the old Roman used to say after every speech—"Delenda est Carthago"— Carthage must be destroyed! What Senator Douglas wants to say is that in every report that comes in there should be this information, the meaning of which is: "Protection should be destroyed." That is the meaning of such an amendment as this, and for that reason I am against it.
Following on the lines of what the last speaker said, I would say that "Nobody ought to be afraid of the truth."
I had intended to oppose this amendment, but I think there must be a case for it that had not occurred to me after hearing what Senator Comyn said. I have absolutely no objection to be continuously reminded night, noon and morning of the consequences of protection. Instead of that I intend to take steps to ensure that nobody will forget the consequences of a protectionist policy.
In the first place, I think it is unnecessary. Paragraph (c) of Section 39 provides that the Commission shall report "whether in the opinion of the Commission such prices are or are not unreasonably high, together with the reasons for such opinion." I think that the Commission, in setting out their reason for that opinion, would, in the majority of cases, have to have advertence to the prices prevailing for the same commodities elsewhere, or the prices at which these goods could be purchased if protective duties were not in force. In quite a number of cases it is not possible to say—it is not possible for anybody to say—at what price goods could be imported into the country if the protective duty did not apply, because prices fluctuate from day to day in accordance with the size of the order or the nature of the competition prevailing in a particular district for certain classes of goods. Senators can recall quite a number of classes of goods to which that applies. With respect to other classes of goods, the prices at which they can be purchased from different countries would vary considerably, depending on the style or cut or fashion of the goods. We can buy hats, for instance, but the people will only buy hats of a particular size or a particular shape or colour. The same applies to boots. People will only wear boots of a particular type. The same applies to clothing. Consequently, you would have to take into account not merely what the price would be with free competition, but whether the people of this country would purchase the goods even with a protective tariff.
Supposing that this amendment were carried, it would pre-suppose not only the carrying out of an investigation into prices, and the reason why these prices are or are not too high, but also the wages paid in the particular industries in other countries, the practice of those engaged in these industries in relation to the dumping of goods at or under the cost of production, and to take in other circumstances which would be altogether outside the scope of the Commission's enquiries and which could not be ascertained in a satisfactory manner without the setting up of complicated machinery and always having to face the possibility of the Commission depending on statements made to it, by witnesses appearing before it, and coming to wrong conclusions as a result of these statements, because it would have no means of checking up on these statements in the countries concerned. For example, the cheapest products come from Japan, and despite duties of 60 or 70 per cent., they are still coming in from that country. We all know that the conditions of labour and the wages paid there are such as would not be tolerated in this country and that that is the chief reason for the low price at which these goods from Japan can be sold. There are other reasons as well. Prices are not entirely due to wages being lower. They are due to a variety of causes, and the Commission would have no means of investigating these causes and would be required to do so by this amendment.
My objections to this amendment are that it proposes to impose upon the Commission a task which it could not perform. Secondly, it is not clear that the Commission should be asked to perform that task, even if it had the power to do so. Thirdly—and this sounds like a legal argument—the Commission will do it in any case. The Commission is certainly given power to carry out any investigation which it considers practicable and to report the result of this investigation.
The first portion of the Minister's statement sounded like my own statement. He gave all the different classes of goods and showed that it would be impossible to ascertain the price.
At which they are produced in other countries.
If it is possible to fix a maximum price for a defined article, as is stated here, it should be possible to do the same for goods obtained outside. It is not fair to bring in the point about the difference in the styles and shapes of boots and other articles of clothing. With regard to the statement that the Commission will do that in any case, with great respect to the Minister, I think he is wrong. Apart from the fact that it could not do it, I do not think that it would necessarily do it. I think that you are not going to get satisfaction unless you are going to have advertence to the price at which the article could be obtained from outside without protection, which might come in here in a reasonable explanation as between the two prices. The Minister has not been coming here very long, and he might realise that, while I do not believe in high protection. I am not, at the same time, a free trader. I am not at all afraid of an investigation of this kind, but I will admit, frankly, that I believe it will be healthy for the manufacturer here to know that when there was an investigation into his goods, there would be also a reasonably fair report as to the prices that could be obtained outside. There may be a fair argument with regard to the latter portion of my amendment, but that was only put in because of a certain sentence in the Minister's speech on the Second Stage in which he suggested that if I was making a suggestion for this inquiry, I should have advertence to these two things, of the conditions outside and the possibility of the commodity being dumped. As far as taking advantage of this Commission to have an inquiry to show what the prices were outside, not in any sense as to what they should charge here, but in relation to seeing that if prices were not reasonable the country should know it, that is a thing I think that nobody should be ashamed of, whether free trader or protectionist.
That they ought always to be reminded of the advantages of mass production.
We can have mass production here, too. I would be prepared to take the last portion of the amendment away, if that would meet the case.
Cathaoirleach
You mean the portion starting with "and in particular"?
Yes, that is the portion I mean, but otherwise I think that there is an opinion here on which I would like the opinion of the House.
I think the last few words of the Senator's speech amount to this—that he is seeking to have reinstated under this amendment the Tariff Commission, because practically all the inquiry that the amendment required was the work of the Tariff Commission. I am entirely in favour of the fullest examination and the fullest publication of the result of this class of investigation, and if this were going to be embodied in the Bill I should certainly like the last paragraph to remain in. But I think it is important for the people of this country, Ministers or others, to know that low prices do not necessarily follow from low wages, and that very often the lowest prices run with the highest wages. A good deal of talk about the product of sweated labour is at sea, because the goods in question are the product of highly-paid labour and highly-efficient organisation. I am prompted to rise because of the feeling that the moving of this amendment must have been consequent on the withdrawal of other amendments coming from the same quarter of the House. I cannot imagine, if the Commission is going to undertake this kind of inquiry, how it could be other than a body sitting continuously. The Tariff Commission had to be working constantly for very many months.
It is only asked to do this if it is inquiring into a specific commodity under the Bill.
This is additional to all the other work of the Commission, and if there is any justification for the allegation that no protective tariffs are needed, one has to be very careful of the prices which manufacturers charge and that there are always temptations to charge a higher price than is justified in free competition. I would imagine that this would be a whole-time job for this Commission. In the last case it proved to be so, and this Commission would have to be continuously sitting. It could not be by any means partially occupied and, in addition, I think it would have to be a highly-remunerated Commission. If these inquiries are going to be of any value at all, the Commission would have to be a much more highly-qualified and much more efficient body than the rest of the Bill would necessitate. While I would have no objection to a Commission of the kind that would have, in addition to its other duties, the duty of this inquiry, I would warn the House that this particular amendment will enlarge the functions of the Commission considerably, will add a good deal to the expense, and will call for continuous whole time operations.
Is it open to me to speak again on this matter?
Cathaoirleach
Yes.
I agree with Senator Johnson that if this amendment is to be put forward at all it ought certainly contain the three or four last lines of it. What is the meaning of it? The price at which a commodity can be obtained from manufacturers outside Saorstát Eireann, and the general reasons which are explanatory of the higher price in Saorstát Eireann. We can very well imagine what the general reasons would be. The first would be that these goods are produced on the Continent, or in Great Britain, on a large scale, and that being so they can be produced cheaper. That would be the main, general reason, and then the lower wages that are being paid, say, in England or in Czecho-Slovakia, if it came to the question of boots—lower wages and less costs of production. I repeat again that public servants would be employed, and a very efficient commission would be established for the purpose of saying, as a result of every investigation into prices, that our prices are high here because we have not mass production, because the labourers are overpaid, and because the conditions of employment are against the cheap production of commodities. This is an amendment that I certainly will not support.
I think it has been stated by the mover of the amendment that he would be prepared to move only the first part of it. I would like to know if I am correct in that?
Cathaoirleach
He said that he was quite prepared to stop at the words "Saorstát Eireann."
The Minister objects to the latter part of it, and there are some Senators who do not like the first part. Therefore, there is no inducement to me to meet them. I am quite prepared to leave the matter to the House. On the whole, I prefer the amendment as it stands.
The section as it stands requires the Commission to examine into the matters set out in the amendment in so far as they affect its business. In so far as it would involve an investigation which the Commission might not otherwise undertake, it means a new investigation and the piling on of work to the Commission. It would lead to complications in certain cases in so far as the Commission was not able to carry out the functions proposed to be conferred on it by the amendment.
I think the amendment should not be inserted in the Bill. Its object is to try to get the Commission to do a kind of work different from that intended: that is, to carry out a sort of general investigation into tariffs and the effect of tariffs, and the difference between the efficiency of industry here and the efficiency of industry in other countries. The Commission has not been established to do that. The Commission should not necessarily have regard to the prices prevailing for similar commodities in other countries except in so far as it is necessary for it to do so to enable it to publish a valuable report on the single question whether or not the prices prevailing here are unreasonably high.
If the principle of the amendment is accepted we can consider the question of altering it later. I think it is quite possible that if the House does accept it, it might be made a little less mandatory on the Report Stage.
The first part of the amendment is the important part and the difficulties in connection with that have, I think, been very much exaggerated. Suppose that the amendment stopped at the word "commodity" in the third line. The remainder of the amendment, if adopted, might involve the Commission in a good deal of work, but the task of the Commission even in connection with that part of it would be much easier, I think, than some of the other things it will be obliged to deal with under the Bill.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 18; Níl, 10.
Tá
- Bagwell, John.
- Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
- Brown, K.C., Samuel L.
- Browne, Miss Kathleen.
- Costello, Mrs.
- Counihan, John C.
- Crosbie, George.
- Desart, The Countess of.
- Douglas, James G.
- Fanning, Michael.
- Garahan, Hugh.
- Griffith, Sir John Purser.
- Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
- Kennedy, Cornelius.
- MacLoughlin, John.
- O'Hanlon, M.F.
- Staines, Michael.
- Wilson, Richard.
Níl
- Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
- Comyn, K.C., Michael.
- Duffy, Michael.
- Farren, Thomas.
- Johnson, Thomas.
- MacEllin, Seán E.
- MacKean, James.
- Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
- Robinson, Séumas.
- Ryan, Séumas.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Douglas and Jameson; Níl: Senators Comyn and S. Robinson.
Amendment declared carried.
Section 39, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 40 to 44 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 14th December.