Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Nov 1952

Vol. 134 No. 8

Restrictive Trade Practices Bill, 1952—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Morrissey

When the debate on this Bill was adjourned on Friday last, I was making the point, with which I think the Minister agreed—I just want to repeat it to get it out of the way— that whatever comments or observations were made by the American delegation in relation to restrictive practices which were hampering or alleged to be hampering our productive capacity in this country, none of those comments or observations applied to the practices with which it is sought to deal under this Bill. It would, I think, be interesting if it were possible for us to get before the Bill leaves this House some idea, if not a full account, from the Minister or from somebody else, of whatever comments or observations were made by the American experts in regard to restrictive practices.

So far as I can gather the objections taken to this Bill by certain persons and certain associations are largely directed against Section 8 of the Bill, what they describe as the powers given to the Minister. I do not believe they have any reason whatever to be apprehensive in relation to Section 8 because, as I read it, any Order made by the Minister under this section can only become operative when it has been submitted to the Oireachtas, and I suppose that is as good a safeguard as one can get short of having a direct appeal to the courts. Frankly, as I tried to make clear when I was speaking on Friday, I am not enamoured of this Bill. I am still of opinion that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to make it effective in dealing with the types of practices that there are undoubtedly in this country and which are harmful to the public interest. In so far as there are legitimate fears in trade or commercial circles regarding the operation of this particular Bill, they are founded on the commission. People are apprehensive as to the type of commission, particularly in relation to the personnel of the commission. The commission here is getting very considerable powers. I have some idea of the difficulty with which the Minister will be faced in getting personnel for that commission of the right type.

General MacEoin

No trouble.

Mr. Morrissey

I said of the right type. I want to emphasise that. They are not there to be picked off gooseberry bushes. It is very difficult and the Minister knows that as well as I do.

I am concerned about clause 8 of the Schedule. I would like to hear from the Minister his reason for clause 8 of the Schedule—inspection of premises and obtaining of information. If I were a trader, whether I was or was not indulging in restrictive practices, I would certainly be a bit worried about this particular part of the Bill. Clause 8 says:—

"In this paragraph `authorised officers' means a member of the commission, a member of the Garda Síochána"—

any one of the 7,000 or the whole 7,000—

"or a person authorised in writing by the commission for the purposes of this paragraph."

Remember what they are authorised to do. Sub-section (2) says:—

"For the purpose of obtaining the information necessary for the exercise by the Minister or the commission of any function under this Act, an authorised officer is hereby authorised—

(a) at all reasonable times to enter premises at which any activity in connection with the business of supplying or distributing goods or in connection with the organisation or assistance of persons engaged in any such business is carried on and to inspect the premises;"

That authorises any one of the 7,000 members of the Garda Síochána in any part of this country to enter on any business premises during business hours, whether at the slack hour or at the busiest period of the day and, according to paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) of clause 8—

"to require the person who carries on such activity and any person employed in connection therewith to produce to the officer any books, documents or records relating to such activity which are in that person's power or control and to give him such information as he may reasonably require in regard to any entries in such books, documents and records;"

So far as I am concerned—and this cannot be construed as any reflection on the Garda Síochána—I am not prepared hereby to authorise the 7,000 members of the Garda Síochána or any one of them to enter upon any business premises in this country at any time and to hold up traders, as they would necessarily have to do in order to carry out what is set out in (a) and (b) there. I do not think it is necessary to do it.

We have provided here in years gone by for the services of the Garda Síochána or officers of the Garda Síochána to be utilised for certain purposes in relation to particular Acts but, if my recollection serves me right, it was set out in the particular statutes that the officer had to be an officer not under the rank of superintendent, inspector or sergeant.

I do not say that it will happen but, as we have often said before, what our intentions or what the Minister's intentions here are in relation to legislation are one thing and how that legislation will be administered when it leaves this House may be a very different thing and I could conceive—and it has happened and is happening in certain parts of this country—that in part of a city, but particularly in a village or town, where a member of the Garda Síochána for any reason you like might have a dislike for, or an edge against, a particular local trader, he could make that man's business existence far from pleasant. I would like to hear the Minister on that and on the necessity for creating, by this particular part of the Schedule, 7,000 inspectors plus whatever number may be authorised in writing by the commission. That is something that I would like the Minister to refer to.

It is said by certain parties outside and by certain organisations that there are no restrictive practices in operation in this country which are detrimental so far as the public are concerned. I have no hesitation whatever in asserting that there are such practices in operation in this country and my only regret is that this Bill does not seek to deal with the most objectionable of them.

Let me quote, without giving names a copy of a letter which came into my possession since this Bill was set down for consideration. This letter was addressed to a manufacturer in this country who is manufacturing a range of articles that are in practically everyday demand in every part of the country. I do not propose to give the firm's name and, for the moment, I do not propose to give the name of the association. I will be very glad to give it to the Minister, if he requires it, afterwards. I want to make it quite clear, because it is the sort of organisation that probably would jump to mind, that the association which addressed this letter to this manufacturer is not R.G.D.A.T.A. This manufacturer had written to the association stating that he proposed to reduce the price of a certain article which he was manufacturing and distributing rather substantially. The price of the article was less than 3/-. It was proposed to reduce it by 6d. This is the reply he got:—

"Dear Sirs,

We acknowledge receipt of your letter regarding the suggested reduced retail price for ——."

I do not want to give the commodity. If I did, it would be recognised.

"The matter has been brought before our committee who instructed me to inform you that, irrespective of what the trade price may be, the retail price is remaining as at present in the list."

I should make it clear that in the proposal which the manufacturer was making to reduce the price to the trade, he was not in any way proposing to interfere with the margins of profit.

"With regard to your notification to place a retail price lower than that usually in our price list, the committee would take serious exception to this step."

I cannot quote the name of this firm because I know enough about the situation to know that that manufacturer would be severely victimised. I quote that one case. There are various other restrictive practices which are very objectionable. The Minister mentioned quite a number. I do not want to weary the House with them. There are two aspects of that letter. One is that it demonstrates that an association is dictating to a manufacturer. The other is that the fixing or branding of a price by a manufacturer on an article which is to be sold retail does not necessarily mean that that price is stamped on the article by the manufacturer for the purpose of maintaining the price.

I could quote quite a number of articles which are branded by the manufacturer with the retail selling price for the very opposite purpose, for the purpose of preventing retailers from charging a higher price than the price at which the manufacturer believes the article should be sold. Frankly, I fail to understand why any manufacturer who wishes to improve and expand his business and to establish a good market for his produce should wish to co-operate either with wholesalers or retailers or with both for the purpose of maintaining a price higher than would give a reasonable profit to all three.

The Minister said in the course of his speech, as reported at column 820:—

"I am asking the House to agree that where a trade association takes power to exclude any citizen from any trade, or imposes restrictions which have the effect of excluding any citizen from any trade, then no matter what justification there may be for that course, and no matter what arguments can be advanced by the association in defence of these restrictions, that association is taking to itself functions which properly belong to the Oireachtas."

"I am asking the House to agree"— the Minister is not asking the House to agree to any such thing unless the Minister was opening the door a bit wider than he intended when he said "any trade," because where those particular types of restrictive practices are being enforced rigidly and ruthlessly and impact in many cases on the weakest section of our people, this Bill does not even purport to deal with those and the Minister is quite aware of that.

I do not want unduly to delay the House on this measure. I agree entirely with the Minister that there is a problem in relation to restrictive practices in this country that must be dealt with. I agree entirely that legislation is the only way to deal with it. I am not satisfied, frankly, that this is going to be effective. I am not satisfied that the Minister was right when he said that, having examined various other means by which these particular practices could be dealt with, he had come to the conclusion that the method set out in the Bill was the best one. Frankly, I do not agree. The Minister said that it would be impossible to operate a legal prohibition. It has not been found impossible in other countries where trade, manufacture and distribution is much more complex than it is in this country. They have found it possible to do it and it is being done and so far as I can learn it is being done effectively.

I am as anxious as the Minister to stamp out any restrictive practice that shows its head and that is going to impose injustices and hardships—and extreme hardships, in some cases—on any of our citizens. On the other hand, I do not want the House to go to the other extreme and impose restrictions and handicaps on industry and trade that may do very grave harm to industry and trade. I doubt very much indeed that there is any hope that when this Bill becomes law it will have any effect whatever in helping to reduce the cost of living. I doubt very much if it will help to any extent worth talking about to keep the cost of living from going still higher, but whether it does or not, this House, in my opinion, is bound to make an attempt to deal with these practices and the Minister is fortunate to this extent anyway that there appears to be unanimity of opinion in the House that there is a problem to be dealt with and it is only a question as to how it can be dealt with most effectively.

Mr. Larkin

There is a certain advantage in entering a discussion on the present Bill following the Minister and the ex-Minister because in their contributions to the debate both of them, on the basis of their far greater knowledge of the problem than could be available to any ordinary member of the House, have committed themselves to the statement that so far as the argument for some machinery of this type is concerned they know, from their own personal experiences, that there are restrictive practices and that they are of such a nature as to require attention. That should be noted, not merely as an indication that there is a problem which merits our attention but for other reasons which I will deal with later.

When we come to deal with the question of restrictive practices, it should be worth while, at the early stages of the debate, to try to recall to ourselves some elementary facts. Since the Bill became public there has been widespread publicity in the Press giving vent to the views of various associations who have been concerned in one way or another with the possibility of this Bill becoming law. This House has also to indicate its viewpoint. So far as persons who may be affected by the Bill are concerned, so far as their activities as manufacturers or traders arise, we should be quite clear that, as against them, this House is speaking for the community and that they represent a very specialised, a very sectional and a very selfish interest and that they are on the defensive. We are dealing with individuals who, whatever they may claim for themselves, do not serve the community out of love to the community. We happen to live under a particular form of society—whether we like it or not does not arise in this matter—in which men and women enter into industry and commercial pursuits not out of any regard for the community or any desire to serve the community but purely as a means of pursuing their own choice of livelihood and that choice is based on the possibilities available to them under the present system of society for making profit out of their activities.

I have yet to read or learn of any occasion—there may have been one or two isolated occasions—when any individuals of this type have voluntarily, of their own accord, decided they were going to take a smaller amount of profit than was otherwise available to them from the community. Therefore, in entering into a discussion on this Bill, we should have no qualms in devising machinery which may appear to be somewhat severe, which, as Deputy Morrissey says, may be interferng too much with the activities of these people in the normal conduct of their business. We are dealing with a condition of affairs in which the guiding motive—and let us be quite plain about it—is a purely selfish motive. We know from experience and from our reading that over the years that selfish motive has had to be curbed time after time by social and communal effort either through legislation or through the self defensive mechanisms of sections of the community who are driven to desperation by the pressure of these circumstances. Whatever seeds of social consciousness, understanding or of moderation in their conduct were sown in the minds and the activities of those engaged in these forms of activity were the outcome of pressure of communal forces and did not originate in their own desire to conform to higher standards. I am speaking of the mass and not of individuals. The need for a Bill of this character coming before this House arises not out of any desire on the part of the Minister, the Government or the House itself to interfere with these activities, but because common sense has told us that these activities have got to be limited and cannot be allowed to run wildfire at the expense of the community.

Possibly the strongest case that can be made against the Bill is that it is long overdue. When we come to deal with the actual problems presented by the Bill, it is interesting to note that we have had statements made by the present Minister for Industry and Commerce and the former Minister indicating the existence of the problem and, to their minds, the magnitude of the problem. It is remarkable that neither of them has indicated up to the moment why the machinery and the measures which were available to them in their ministerial capacities were not used up to this to deal with the problem.

I have read through the Minister's speech. He lists a whole number of commodities in respect of which he indicates there are various forms of restrictive practices. He points out that in certain cases these products are manufactured by protected industries and he seems to have glossed over the fact that whatever may be the defects of the present Bill, there is no more effective machinery than the power that lies in the hands of the Government in respect of protected industries to ensure they conform to certain desirable social standards. I may be mistaken but I cannot recall at the moment any special step that I am aware of where that machinery was used to deal with some of the abuses.

I wonder—I think many other people wonder, too—why the Bill was introduced just at this particular moment. I am not concerned with the fact that there is a by-election on. I am concerned more with a long-term view. I feel that we should have some regard to that aspect of the matter. We have had in this country over the last 25 years a steady development of industrial activities carried on on the basis of the sacrifices made by the community as a whole for this industrial development, an industrial development which was very lucrative for many of those engaged in it.

The cost to the community of financing that development, through our system of protective tariffs, must have been fairly heavy. None of us objected to that. We recognised that it was a national, economic necessity that we had to face up to that task but in the process and over the years all of us have been aware that there were practices developing to which strong objection could be taken. We are reinforced in that belief by authoritative statements made by the present Minister and by his predecessor.

If we have particular industries operating under a tariff, a tariff which is provided at the expense of the ordinary consumer, and apparently it is a fact, as indicated by the speech of the Minister and of Deputy Morrissey, that, within some of these protected industries, there have been practices which should have been rectified, why has no step been taken up to the present time? Surely it is a very simple question to inform protected industries that if they do not mend their ways there will be a change made in the protection afforded them. I have yet to learn of that being done in any drastic measure.

In his speech the Minister touched upon this particular problem and stated that where protection was afforded to home industries against external competition the community were entitled to expect that competition within the domestic market should not be interfered with and that competition should prevail for the benefit of the consumers. We have had so many instances, particularly during the last 12 years, of that competition failing to be effective and of the fact that the Government itself, upon occasions, ensured there would be no competition that the question arises in many minds as to why, in fact, we are presented with this Bill at the present moment.

We can recall that in the case of one of the most important building materials we had a shortage existing in the country for nearly three years while discussions went on as to the rate of profits that was to be allowed to the concern. There was no competition with that particular concern, and yet the sole result at the end of a very considerable delay as to payment for this material was that the concern got their way and we are now paying for the result. We had many other instances like that.

We have had over 12 years the continuous and never-ending problem that has faced the consumer and Government after Government, the problem of dealing with the prices of the general range of goods in this country. We finally reached the position where we had a tribunal established to deal with these prices by public examination. We are equally aware that in many cases the problem that arose in respect of a particular price was not merely the problem of the rising cost of materials and of labour but purely the question of individuals, either in a particular industry or in a unit of industry, taking an unjustifiable advantage of the situation and as they were quite entitled to do, under the economic laws that rule, reaping as big a harvest as they could while the going was good. Up to the moment, no effective steps have been taken to ensure that if we are to pursue a policy of protection for Irish industries, that policy will not only operate for the purpose of ensuring industrial development, employment for our own people and the supplying of goods for our own people but that there will be none of the restrictive practices in any particular industry to which we take objection to-day. It could be dealt with very simply without any Bill of this character and without any elaborate machinery.

We of the Labour Party not only support the Bill but we agree that it is necessary. Choice as to the character of the Bill is not something which is open to us to any extent. It would be difficult, as indicated by the Minister, to set down in the Bill the various forms of restrictive practices to which objection could legitimately be taken, and the best we can hope for is to devise machinery which can be made available for the examination of charges or complaints of restrictive practices, for the determination of fair-trading rules and for advising not so much the Minister as the House as to what steps should be taken to deal with the particular problem.

My doubt in regard to the Bill is not in respect of the machinery, although it is worth making the comment that, if this Bill were introduced by a Labour Government, or even by a Government with which the Labour Party was associated, the outcry would be so great and the opposition so strong that one might well believe we were on the verge of civil commotion and revolution. We would be told that we were interfering with the rights of private property, that we were interfering with private enterprise and trying to apply the most extreme forms of socialistic and communist doctrine that one could envisage. Yet a Government who, according to their own claim, are the supreme defenders of private enterprise and private property are the Government who bring in this Bill.

There is a good deal of comment on it and a certain amount of opposition, but on the whole it is very mild. I do not think that either the Federation of Irish Manufacturers or the Associated Chambers of Commerce are unduly worried by the fact that the Minister has introduced the Bill. I wonder why that is, because, some two years ago, when the previous Government took steps to set up a prices tribunal and to put a temporary stop on price increases, the outcry was at least 100 times greater than it is on the present occasion and very effective steps were taken to ensure that the stop put on price increases was very quickly removed and the effectiveness of the prices tribunal very greatly reduced. It has been much more effectively reduced since the change of Government and since we had the present Minister coming back into office with a declaration of his lack of faith in that type of machinery to deal with prices.

However, the tribunal is still there and we are now proposing to establish another tribunal in the form of a commission to deal with this other problem of restrictive practices. Yet, as I say, the outcry is not very great. I frankly think that it is because those who are engaged in restrictive practices, such as they may be, are not very fearful that the machinery is going to operate very drastically, and over the years they have not got any strong indication that the Minister and his Party are going to interfere unduly with the manufacturer, the wholesale distributor or the merchant who pursues his merry way at the expense of the Irish community. They have had a very good run for their money over the years since we acquired the right to decide our own destinies and it is remarkable that the darling of Irish manufacturing circles, the circles which represent what we have come to regard as the moneyed interests in this country, is the Fianna Fáil Party and Government. The Minister shakes his head, but he knows that that is shown exceptionally clearly by the list of those who contributed to the National Loan.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

And to Fianna Fáil Party funds.

Mr. Dillon

They got £9,000 from the millers for three by-elections.

Mr. Davern

And you got £13,000 from another source.

Mr. Larkin

As I say, my doubt with regard to the Bill is not in respect of the Bill itself or the machinery proposed. It is the same problem we have had time after time when we tried to devise machinery of this kind. The machinery itself is not so important. It is the conviction and the earnestness with which the machinery is to be operated which are important. This commission which is now proposed to deal with restrictive practices can be just as ineffective as the prices section of the Department of Industry and Commerce was for many years and as the Prices Tribunal has largely become by reason of the way in which it is allowed to operate to-day.

There is another aspect of this matter to which we might point. It is an aspect of restrictive practices for which both this Government and the previous Government should answer. In addition to the imposition of import duties on foreign made goods, we have a system of controlling imports by quotas, and it is a peculiar thing that these quotas operate in such a manner as to enable an imposition of as much as 10 or 15 per cent. of the cost price of these goods to be imposed on a manufacturer and therefore, finally, on the consumer by a single individual who never possesses a yard of the goods and whose only claim to charge that 10 or 15 per cent. is the fact that he is allowed to operate by the good grace of the Government in power.

I recall on one occasion having to make representations on behalf of a small factory in the city, employing 60 or 70 people. They were on the verge of shutting down and putting these men and women out of employment. They were making a good article, and a reasonably cheap article, but they could not continue manufacturing because they had no raw material— cloth in this case. Their apportionment under the quota was so small that it allowed them to work only three days in the month, but they would be able to work for the other 27 or 28 days of the month on one condition, that they went to an individual, an agent, obtained their supplies of cloth from him and paid him an agent's fee amounting to 15 per cent. of the cost of the material.

This individual had no office, and, so far as I am aware, all he had was an attaché case and a book of order forms. He had, however, a very large share of the total quota of that cloth coming into the country, and, because he had a right to that share, he was able to charge a manufacturer 15 per cent. on the cloth supplied. He never saw the cloth and never had it in his office or warerooms, because he had no office or warerooms to keep it in. He acted merely as a parasite not merely on the back of the manufacturer but ultimately on the back of the consumer as well. The only justification for a continuance of that system is that it was the way it worked before the war and we could not interfere with it, could not interfere with the normal channels of trade.

That is only one small instance, but I have no doubt that if we could utilise as the Minister could utilise and as his predecessor could have utilised, the full information service of the Department to check up on all the similar cases, we would find a very highly developed system not of restrictive practices, because it seems to me that is too fine a name to attach to it, but of open piracy carried on by individuals in that position. If we object to trade associations fixing prices or restricting the supply of goods or excluding individuals from particular trades or activities, what justification can we find for imposing on a whole section of industry parasites of this type, who, because of their single individual activity, are able to impose such a heavy charge as 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. of the cost of basic raw materials on a manufacturer? From that point of view the Government, whether it be the present Government or their predecessors, have got to meet the charge that whether they like it or not they are party themselves to certain forms of restrictive practices and should put their own house in order.

Similarly we have another interesting aspect of restrictive practices. The Minister in his speech referred to restrictive practices whereby certain conditions are laid down which deny individuals an opportunity of engaging in a particular form of business or pursuing a livelihood along certain lines, maybe because their premises must meet certain minimum standards, or because they must be admitted to a trade association which has a monopoly of certain supplies. Apparently the objection there is that conditions are being laid down which prevent an individual or individuals from entering into a perfectly legitimate form of business activity. Yet for the last 18 months the country has experienced the greatest ramp in restrictive practices which probably any country has known for quite some time. I refer to the restrictive practices of the banks and financial institutions.

Mr. Hickey

Hear, hear!

Mr Larkin

What is the sense in complaining about a small number of individuals not being able to open a petrol station or garage down the country when we know that whole sections of industry in this country have been crimped, confined and restricted in their business activities over the past 18 months by one section of the business world who engage in the monopoly of the money, finance and credit activities of this country? I recall that in this House the Minister referred to this particular problem and expressed the hope that as far as the capital development plans of the present Government were concerned the banks would be co-operative and would not create difficulties. I wonder what he feels to-day and whether he has made up his mind about them. Quite clearly, in relation to the capital programme of the Government and to the activities of small manufacturers, shopkeepers and wholesalers the banks play exactly the same restrictive role, when they feel like it and they have felt very much like it during the past 18 months.

Perhaps we will have an opportunity later of going into the whole matter more fully, but if we want to go into restrictions which hamper and hold back the development of our industrial economy, the development of manufacturing industry, our trade and our commerce, if we are to authorise limiting the effect of restrictive practices in so far as they impose additional charges and expense on the consumer, is there any reason why we should not go into the basic cause of the trouble and deal with our financial problems at the same time? I gather that within the scope of the present Bill it is unlikely, if it becomes an Act, that the commission will have power to deal with the problem of the banks' activities. Apparently, they are engaged in a "service". It would be interesting to have the nature of the service defined. As far as the scope of the present Bill is concerned, however, they are not selling or distributing goods and, therefore, for the moment, they are excluded. It would, I think, be of great benefit to the community as a whole and would probably solve many difficulties of the business and industrial community if we did apply our minds for a while to an inquiry into the restrictive activities of the banks. For that reason I feel, as I said earlier, that we are entitled to have some sense of dubiety as to what will happen after the Bill becomes an Act.

On the Committee Stage it is likely that there will be a number of points which we will wish to take up and have clarified but at the present stage the main consideration is to indicate our approach in principle to the Bill. The Labour Party are in favour of the Bill which will give power to inquire into, and deal effectively with, restrictive practices. We feel in the circumstances that we have little choice but to accept the machinery set out in the Bill. We frankly do not feel that it would be possible to define the various forms of restrictive practices which would be regarded as objectionable and prescribe remedies and palliatives, but we do wish to emphasise that no matter how effective the machinery may be as it is established by this House, ultimately that machinery will depend for its results, not on the commission—though that is important—but on the Minister and the Government under whom the commission operates. We have very grave doubts whether under the existing Government and with the existing Minister that machinery will be effective. We feel that their ties are too close and intimate with the various individuals and groups against whom the Bill is in the main directed. Above all, the real test both of the intentions of the Government and of the effectiveness of the machinery suggested in the Bill is that the commission should operate in the fullest possible publicity.

Mr. Hickey

Hear, hear!

Mr. Larkin

Too long have we had the suggestion that because an individual is engaged in business or manufacture he is to be afforded a protection not granted to other individuals in the community. I again emphasise that where an industry is carried on behind a protective tariff the community has not got to make any apology for insisting upon its rights to have the fullest, and most public inquiry into the activities of that industry.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. Larkin

Individual units of that industry are not entitled to dark corners into which the light of publicity cannot be shone. The Labour Party have pointed out on many occasions that we have now got machinery in the State whereby the ordinary working man and woman must go into a public court and submit themselves if necessary to a most public examination with regard to their claims for an improved standard of living. When we speak of utilising the same type of machinery for manufacturers and businessmen, however, the defence is made that it would be unfair to them to have their personal and confidential business secrets exposed not merely to the public but to their rivals. Frankly, I have always had very grave doubts about that. The only kind of business secret that could possibly be dangerous or create difficulties if it were known would be a secret manufacturing process. Such secrets, however, are not subject to public examination. The only things which we ask should be publicly examined are their financial transactions. A great many public companies in the State have already got to submit to that and if private companies expect—as apparently they do— that the consumer will continue to pay tribute to them year after year to maintain them in business, they have no legitimate grounds for objecting to publicity or a public examination of their affairs.

I note that the Bill provides that the commission may conduct portion of the inquiry in private and that the Minister may decide that certain sections of their report to him may not be made public. I would strongly suggest to the Minister that he divest himself of those powers because if there are reports to him from that commission and portions of those reports are retained as being private and confidential there will be no doubt of the construction which will be put on the Minister's decision to retain those sections in private and not to give them to the public. If we believe —apparently the Minister does and Deputy Morrissey—that we have got a problem to deal with here, that we have got restrictive practices that cannot be justified, which are unfair and which, in fact, should be made illegal, then the public are entitled to the fullest information on every aspect of the examination into those practices. That, I would say, particularly arises in respect of industries that are enjoying the favour of protective tariffs, protected industries. I know of no reason, excuse or justification why any section of the examination should be held in private and, in particular, should be kept from this House. It is well to bear in mind that if a report comes before this House in the form of an Order and the House is asked to make it a legal instrument, the House is entitled to know as much as the Minister before they make that a binding and legal decision. As the Bill stands at the moment, possibly the most important and the most essential part of the report can be marked by the Minister as private and confidential and not made available to the House. The members of the House will be required to accept the Minister's word that what he asks them to do should be given effect to. That is objectionable and will have to be considered on the Committee Stage.

As I understand it, this Bill is put forward, in the main, for two reasons. Its first object is to remove as far as possible those restrictive practices which interfere with the proper and normal development of Irish industrial economy. I take it that when we think in terms of Irish industrial economy we have in mind the welfare of the Irish people. The second object is to ensure that restrictive practices which will extract from the consumer an unduly high price are not continued. In other words, it is for the consumer that we purport to put forward this Bill and are asked to pass it into law. If that is the case and if the consumers are the main consideration in our minds, either as consumers of goods or as members of the Irish community, we should have clearly set out in the Bill the approach which is available to any consumer or any body of consumers who require the commission to investigate any complaint they may desire to make.

As the Bill stands at the moment, the making of fair-trading rules can be initiated only at the request of a trade association; in the case of an inquiry the initiatory act must come from the commission. In order to ensure our bona fides, to make the machinery effective and to enlist the support of the public and the consumer, we should make it clear that the commission is approachable by every consumer directly and without qualification. It should be made clear that the commission will consider any reasonable submission made to them and will indicate whether they propose to take action and, if they do not, the grounds on which they refuse to do so. The position should not be allowed to remain as it appears at the moment because already there is the feeling that the commission will act only when it thinks fit, itself, to do so or when required to do so by the Minister. Already I have heard complaints outside the House that, while this machinery is being devised for the benefit of the consumers, the consumers are the one body being denied access to the commission. I am satisfied that that is not the case. I believe that if the commission receive representations from anybody they will consider those representations.

It is important that in setting up bodies of this type, whether to deal with price control or control of trading practices, from the beginning we invite and secure public confidence in and public support for the machinery. I know of no more effective way of destroying that confidence than by giving the impression that the machinery is going to operate in some kind of semi-secrecy, is going to be divorced from the mass of the people and will operate merely as some form of departmental activity in the same fashion as the prices section.

The Labour Party welcome the Bill. We propose to support it. We hope we shall have an opportunity, on the Committee Stage, of improving it. We stress very strongly that to the extent that the case has been made by the Minister that these objectionable practices exist, to the extent that he is now asking us to provide the machinery, to that extent he takes the responsibility of seeing that the machinery works and of not continuing the practice which we believe has operated for too many years in this country of merely making a pretence of dealing with the problem and then, when the problem has ceased to arouse public interest, to allow the machinery to become ineffective and to allow these extortions and exploitations of the mass of the consuming public to occur again.

Mr. McGrath

I think that a Bill such as this is long overdue but I am inclined to agree with Deputy Larkin that this Bill does not go far enough. In my opinion, some indication should be given as to what will happen those people who commit breaches of the Act. It is clear that in this country and, I suppose, in other countries a certain section of the people have for a considerable time been getting huge profits. Manufacturers have been attacked in this House and outside it but I think it is a terrible state of affairs when the cost of selling an article amounts to as much and in some cases more than the cost of producing it.

As reported in columns 714 and 715 of the Official Report of the 27th March last, I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he was aware that certain manufacturers and wholesalers compel retailers to charge fixed minimum prices for certain goods and that, although in many cases the retailers would be satisfied with smaller profits, they are unable to reduce prices as they would be struck off the traders' lists if they did so; and, if so, if he would have immediate steps taken to end this compulsory practice so as to foster competition and reduce prices. The Minister in his reply stated: "I would refer the Deputy to the reply which I gave to a somewhat similar question on the 22nd November, 1951. A Bill containing legislative proposals dealing with restrictive trade practices is in course of preparation; and the proposals will relate also to resale price maintenance." I asked the Minister then if they would be allowed to carry on in the same way until the Bill was introduced. We remember the famous case taken against the R.G.D.A.T.A. by a retailer who tried to sell goods to consumers at a cheaper rate than other traders with the result that he was struck off the traders' lists.

What prompted me to put down the question to the Minister which I have quoted above was that, at the time, I was a member of the board of a voluntary hospital and a member of the committee of the local sanatorium. The two bodies concerned happened to buy a wireless set at that particular time. It was the same make of wireless set and the same price, but the voluntary hospital had to pay £18 whereas in the maintenance orders for the sanatorium committee the price was £18 less 33? per cent. I asked the secretary of the voluntary hospital to ring up the retailer—who happened to be the same person in each case—and to look for the 33? per cent. reduction. The secretary of the South Infirmary, Cork, was told by the trader that the reduction could be given only to local authority hospitals or else he would be struck off the traders' list.

I presume that when selling this wireless set to the local authority hospital at £12, the trader must have had a pretty fair percentage of profit, probably in the neighbourhood of 25 per cent., but in selling that particular set to the ordinary householder or to the voluntary hospital there would probably be 100 per cent. profit. I think that is a scandalous state of affairs. I know many traders who, if they got the opportunity, would be very glad to get a couple of pounds or 30/- profit on that particular set.

The same thing happens in the case of many other commodities. Are we going to allow our industries to be interfered with by wholesalers or even by manufacturers, who compel retailers to charge a particular fixed minimum price? They are told that if they sell at a price less than that they will be struck off the trader's list. I do not know what kind of consciences these people have. I do not know what religion they belong to if they find it consistent with their conscientious principles to prevent a man selling an article at a smaller profit than other people demand. We shall never get a reduction in prices if we have not some competition. We always had competition long ago.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. McGrath

I think it was the Deputy who has just said "hear, hear" who told us that it was the only way to bring down prices.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. McGrath

I think that that particular case alone, in which a fixed minimum price was sought to be imposed, is a sufficient justification for any Government to bring in a Bill such as this. Then you have the case of, say, a local authority engaged in a housing scheme and which tries to buy, for instance, 100 baths. I asked our city manager to inquire from the manufacturers at what price they would supply 120 baths for a housing scheme. He was plainly told that they could supply only through a builder's provider or agent. If an agent is to get 20 or 30 per cent. profit on 120 baths which are to be used in houses provided for the working classes in this country, without his ever seeing these baths, that is a practice that must be eradicated. There is no use in talking about the increased rates of interest for loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts, if we do not abolish these practices. I mention the case of baths because I asked the city manager to make certain inquiries and he gave me the reply he got to these inquiries. The same thing applies to any other article.

Mr. Hickey

Including cement.

Mr. McGrath

There is one thing about cement—we are producing cement at a cheaper price in this country than we could import it and we are producing more of it now at a cheaper price than when the people opposite were in office. They preferred to import it.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

It is like the butter.

Mr. McGrath

I certainly say that people who are in a position to give a big order for a housing scheme should not be compelled to hand over a bonus, if you like, for that is what it is, to those builder's providers who simply put through the order to the manufacturer and get them to send the goods direct to the housing scheme without ever seeing them at all or having any responsibility for handling them.

The question of breweries was mentioned on the last day when reference was made to attempts by some breweries to compel licensed traders not to sell any product but their own. My attention was drawn to an article which appeared in the Irish Times on Tuesday, October 31st. The article is headed: “Million Dollar Suit Against Guinness.” It states that the suit alleges that two firms, described as subsidiaries of the parent Irish company, cut off supplies of Guinness stout from Dublin Distributors Incorporated. I do not want to weary the House by reading the report in full but I should like to mention that because a brewery in Cork, Beamish's, was exporting stout to America and because these agents in America were distributing that stout of the Cork firm and earning dollars for this country, they were threatened that they would not get any more Guinness.

Mr. Dillon

As this suit has not yet come before the courts and the matter is sub judice, it should not, I think, be made the subject of comment in this House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the matter is before the courts it would be better not to refer to it further at present.

Mr. McGrath

I just want to point out that there are more cases which are not in the courts. There is, for instance, the attitude of the bottlers, which prevents bottlers in different districts from bottling Guinness stout with the usual brown label, if they are bottling any other stout. I think that this all amounts to restriction in trade. It is tantamount to saying: "If you do not confine your business to our goods, we will not supply you with any of them". If practices of that kind are to be allowed in this country people will be selling only the product of one manufacturer.

Mr. Morrissey

Is the tied-house system still in operation in Cork?

Mr. McGrath

It is, but I am talking of independent houses which are not allowed to buy what they like.

Mr. Dillon

Who tied the houses in Cork?

Mr. McGrath

Some of your predecessors, I suppose.

Mr. Dillon

Right enough, I had an ancestor down there who was a brewer —Father Mathew's brother. He was a brewer and Father Mathew bankrupted him.

Mr. McGrath

We had also a question about American coal. I asked the Minister how was a person going to discriminate between English coal and American coal. We got in a cargo of American coal but if a person goes and asks for a ton of American coal, he is told by the merchants that they have no American coal but that they have English coal. How does he know whether he is getting American or English coal? If a merchant sells some American coal to another merchant in the country, who also sells English coal, when that merchant re-sells the coal how is anybody to know whether it is American or English coal?

Mr. Dillon

By the results, whether it burns or not.

Mr. McGrath

Previously we had a system of averaging prices but that no longer exists, I think. I think the few remarks I have made are sufficient to bring home to the general body of people what is happening. Again you have the case of motor-cars in which trade is confined to certain agents. We have the same with regard to petrol. It is only certain people who will get the petrol to sell and then only when certain trade associations will agree. You have people to-day getting as much on the sale of a motor-car as you could buy a motor-car for a couple of years ago. I think it is about time that someone stepped in to deal with that.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear! A Daniel come to judgment!

Mr. McGrath

I am very glad that the Minister has decided to do that. I think we should be told, when this commission sits to hold an inquiry, what is going to happen to the retailer or the trader who has committed a breach, whether he is going to be fined or put out of business or what is going to happen him, or whether he is going to be warned only. I believe that something drastic should be done to anyone committing breaches.

Mr. Cosgrave

The penalty is set out in the Bill.

Mr. McGrath

Well, I think that the £5,000 that is there would not be much to some people. I think, with Deputy Larkin, that a lot of it should be in public, and that we should know what is happening.

Mr. Hickey

I think it should be all in public.

Mr. McGrath

I think so, too. There is too much poking in the dark. Some of those people have now made enough money out of this country, and it is about time that some Minister, like the Tánaiste, had the courage to put a stop to it. I think the people of this country have to thank Mr. Guiney for the way he spoke up.

Mr. Dillon

It is most exhilarating to receive into the fold this convert. A late repentance even in the autumn of one's day is better than persistence in error. I remember referring to tariff racketeers in this House, and then heard Deputy Davin murmuring from his pew, "Industrial sabotage," and I saw Deputy McGrath looking around in plaintive dismay and saying——

Mr. McGrath

You did not.

Mr. Dillon

——is there nobody in the country who will shoot this fellow?

Mr. McGrath

I did not attack the manufacturers. You did.

Mr. Dillon

I attacked the tariff racketeers who batten on our people and have done so for 20 years. They have done it by leave and licence of the Fianna Fáil Party. Deputy McGrath complained that there is no competition as regards the sale of radio sets and baths. Why? Because it was only recently that Fianna Fáil gave them both prohibitive tariffs which they operate under licence to plunder our people. That is our answer.

Mr. McGrath

It is not an answer.

Mr. Dillon

I will prove it.

Mr. McGrath

I attacked the people who are charging too much for bread.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has already spoken and should not interrupt.

Mr. Dillon

I am attacking exactly the same people as those whom Deputy McGrath has been attacking for the last 20 minutes, the people who were robbing our people by licence of the Fianna Fáil Party and who were keeping the Fianna Fáil Party in power by the distribution of their ill-gotten gains.

Mr. Davern

Are we discussing Deputy McGrath or the Bill?

Mr. Dillon

We are discussing Deputy McGrath and the Fianna Fáil Party and this fraudulent Bill.

Mr. Cogan

A Bill which has been accepted by all the Opposition Parties.

Mr. Dillon

Surely Deputy Cogan does not still claim to speak for the Opposition in this House. If ever there was a tin can tied to the tail of Fianna Fáil, there it sits, and let it rattle respectfully when it is dragged along the cobbles by the tail to which it is attached.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That has nothing whatever to do with the Bill.

Mr. Cunningham

That does not worry Deputy Dillon.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy McGrath is now regretting that he spoke.

Mr. McGrath

Not at all. I never did.

Mr. Dillon

There is one outstanding difference between Deputy Larkin and myself to which I want to refer. The wholesale and retail distributive trade is what I have been earning my living at while Deputy Larkin has all that time been a trade unionist.

Mr. McGrath

These are the people that I have been attacking.

Mr. Dillon

For 20 years I have inveighed in Dáil Éireann against the abuses of the distributive, wholesale and retail trade and of all others who sought to use tariffs for the purpose of robbing our people. I wonder does that entitle me, as one who has proved the saeva indignatio which he felt right throughout that 20 years, to say: “Abi, viator et imitare si poteris strenuum pro virili libertatis vindicatorem.” These words are taken from the epitaph of Dean Swift. He thanked God that he had gone to his grave where savage indignation would no longer rend his breast, and he exhorted those who read that epitaph to go and do what he would wish to do for the freedom of his people and their deliverance from exploitation.

I have never hesitated to criticise in this House abuses arising from the distributive trade. I have stigmatised tariff racketeers wherever I saw them, but I think it is right to say this, that there are more than tariff racketeers who operate restrictive practices which are gravely inimical to the legitimate rights of their fellow citizens.

I want all restrictive practices which operate unjustly in our community to be exposed to the light of publicity so that decent public opinion will operate to end them. Mind you, I do not attach much importance to statutory penalties. I believe that these evils are best abated by the light of day and the disapprobation which their illumination will bring on them from all sections of society such as that to which we belong. Let us not forget that, in the ears of any reasonable person, it must sound, in some degree, fantastic to hear Deputy Larkin dragooning, for public odium, persons engaged in the distributive trade who, he said, did not enter it for love of their neighbour but for profit which he professes to scorn. I compare the entrepreneur who enters the retail trade in rural Ireland for profit with the wealthy trade unionists in Dublin who belong to a trade union, membership of which is most emphatically restricted so as to keep the numbers down. For what purpose?

Mr. Cogan

Not for love of their neighbour.

Mr. Dillon

Not for love of their neighbour but in order to secure a larger share of the profit of the enterprise in which they are engaged.

Mr. Cunningham

That does not come under this Bill.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy says it does not come under this Bill. Why does it not come under this Bill? If there is to be restriction of one section why will there not be the same salutary control of all? I am not asking to have exempted from this Bill the rich man, the influential man, the big man or anybody else. I want all those who, by restrictive practices batten on their neighbours, to be brought within the control not of a punitive measure, for I do not give a fiddle-de-dee about the penalties prescribed in this Bill, but within the control of a measure which will enforce upon them the light of day and challenge them to have the practices to which they habitually resort described in detail to the neighbours among whom they live and have thrust upon them the burden of defending, justifying and explaining how the practice revealed conforms with equity and justice.

Given that, I warrant that, without any penalty or prosecution of any man, the common conscience of our people will bring genuine offenders quickly to book. I think it is wrong of Oireachtas Éireann to devise legislation which, in fact, operates to be sauce for the gander but something quite different for the goose. There is only one proper kind of law that any Parliament can make and that is a law before which all men are equal. I see no justice in a law which does not apply in exactly the same degree to the rich and to the poor, to the powerful and to the humble. Let us remember that if any man, be he rich or poor, powerful or humble, combines together with his neighbour or his colleagues in an activity which is not inimical to the commonweal, there is nothing in this Bill for him to fear. If he is doing nothing of which he need be ashamed and if he is supporting nothing that he would not be prepared to defend, will he not jump at this opportunity of coming before a body of this kind and saying: "I welcome the opportunity of meeting in public the allegation that I have combined with others to do something unjust or unfair. Here is all the detail of what we do and why we do it, and we think that it is right and just and fair and a hardship to no man."

I want to deal with this measure as it is submitted by the Minister. I want to refer to the Minister's introductory speech. At column 817 of the Official Report on Friday, 31st October, 1952, the Minister said:—

"The operation of a resale price arrangement has been alleged to exist in relation to many classes of grocery goods, drapery goods, agricultural machinery, veterinary preparations, radios and distempers and, of course, as the House will remember from debates a long time back, to cigarettes and tobacco."

In the same column he goes on to say:—

"In view of the volume of complaint which has reached the Department of Industry and Commerce, and which has occasionally been expressed in the Dáil, I think that the need for legislation is obvious. It is true that it is contended that the scale and operation of restrictive practices here is not very great or, at any rate, is not as great as in some other countries. The important fact for us to note, however, is that it is growing and it is the growth of these restrictive practices which, I think, emphasises the need for investigating the position and the taking of means to control it before it goes too far."

I invite Deputies to peruse these columns and to ask themselves the question: Do they not contain the most admirable description of what I have stigmatised for 20 years as tariff racketeering? Let us face the fact that tariff racketeers are the children of Fianna Fáil. It is they who created them and it is they who live out of them. Robert Louis Stevenson once wrote a story called Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Dr. Jekyll is with us to-day. The Minister is in his reforming mood and wants to see justice done to all. No vengeance. No recrimination. He merely wants all to come together to see justice done. Dr. Jekyll used to want that when he had his top hat, his spats and his frock coat on and if anyone had gone to him and said: “But are you not the Mr. Hyde I saw cavorting on the roofs last night?” he would have drawn himself up with dignity and bid the man “Begone.” How dare he identify him with the disagreeable character jack-acting in the dark alleys the night before! We all know the painful story. At periods, when Dr. Jekyll wore his frock coat and carried his doctor's bag he was a respectable citizen. When Mr. Hyde went out on the tiles at night it became harder and harder to get him home until eventually when the patients called on Dr. Jekyll they found awaiting them Mr. Hyde.

The Minister in his Mr. Hyde days brought this tariff racketeering generally into existence. As Deputy McGrath said so eloquently, in his plain and honest way, there used not to be these abuses. That is quite true. They are of recent growth. If one could not buy a bath at a reasonable price at one period of our history one could go to another man and look to him for a price. Why is it we cannot do that now? The answer is that Mr. Hyde was on the tiles.

Deputy McGrath was anxious to see the patients in Cork infirmary get a radio. He was quoted a price. He thought the price too high. He finds now that he cannot get a competitive quotation and he wants to know the reason why. The answer is that Mr. Hyde was on the tiles again. There was a tariff put on radios, too. Come! Name a single commodity in which a restrictive practice operates in this city that is not subject to a tariff or a quota. I challenge any potential racketeer to establish a restrictive practice which I cannot break unless that restrictive practice is sustained by the Minister for Industry and Commerce when he is on the tiles like Mr. Hyde. I do not believe that the Dr. Jekyll side of the Minister for Industry and Commerce will long prevail. When someone calls on Dr. Jekyll to invoke the power of this Act and bring some miscreant to book there will be an election pending. There will be an election pending and the treasurers of the Fianna Fáil organisation will simply rub the back of their heads and say "crackle, crackle, crackle".

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Has that any relation to the Bill?

Mr. Dillon

I would be glad to expand it in greater detail. I am suggesting that when a general election is pending the same vested interests that gave £9,000 for the three by-elections will contribute a further £15,000 to the Fianna Fáil organisation on condition that there are no uncomfortable references of their restrictive practices to the commission which is set up under this Bill.

Mr. Lemass

Why did we introduce the Bill? Could we not just have avoided introducing it?

Mr. Dillon

Why did Mr. Hyde put on the frock coat and tall hat of Dr. Jekyll from time to time and put them on with lesser frequency as time went on? Why did his appearances as Dr. Jekyll become a fragrant memory when he was finally put behind bars? Because he degenerated slowly. That is why. I do not doubt that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has degenerated slowly. I imagine that in his salad days and in his open-eyed enthusiasm when he was the dashing young Lochinvar in 1931 he thought all he had to do was to snap his fingers and swing his arms and industry would blossom in the land. He told the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis recently that the industries established heretofore would compare with those as yet to come in the ratio of a raindrop to an earthquake. If the restrictive practices grew out of a raindrop to the same degree as we would expect to come out of an earthquake, God help us. Deputy McGrath will not be able to get a mouth organ or a tin whistle for the patients in the Cork hospital, never mind a wireless.

I think this Bill was brought in for the purpose of creating the impression that the Minister was going to do something about the mounting volume of protests rolling into his Department against the highway robbery that was going on. I ask the House to remember that up to three months ago Deputy McGrath used to get hysterics and Deputy Davern used to rumble and if there were Ministers sitting on the front Fianna Fáil bench they shook like jelly at the horrible aspersion cast on Irish industry and the Gaels who manned it. What has happened that the Fianna Fáil Party has now become the hammer and the scourge of tariff racketeers? Is it that the scandal stank so high to heaven that they felt they could not sit on the lid of the pot much longer? Or is it perhaps that Deputy McGrath struck and said he would not sit on the lid of the pot any longer?

I think it behoves the Minister for Industry and Commerce to tell me and not for me to tell him why he has changed his tune. When did he find out that this tariff racketeering was going on? I am bound to say, in order to give the devil his due, that I raised in this House a question relating to baths and their supply and I told the complainants who came to me that I had no doubt that if this matter was brought to the attention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and conviction was carried to his mind that what I described was in progress he would provide a remedy. Let me say openly and frankly that when the facts had been fully investigated by the Department of Industry and Commerce —I do not know how the executive action was taken—effective action was taken to put right what was wrong and I was very grateful for it because I had pledged my reputation to the people who approached me originally that it would be put right by any Department of State once the full facts were brought before them.

It may be that I have educated the Department of Industry and Commerce. It would not be the first time. But if I have at last succeeded in bringing home to the mind of the Minister the facts which he has long and so excitedly and so violently denied, then I make the modest suggestion that if hereafter the House contemplates establishing any order of merit they can consider my name to be included very high up on the roll in that I have achieved in the political life of this country a miracle which deserves to take its place with some of the greatest that have been recorded in the history of the human race.

I am glad, however, that a body is to be set up which will have the power to turn the searchlights of public opinion on unsavoury, smelly transactions such as have disgraced the business life of this country. Bear in mind that I have stated repeatedly in this House and outside it that there are in the business life of this country strictly honourable and decent men who never sought any protection, who never sought any licence to rob their fellow man. Their fine reputation has been gravely compromised by the racketeers who have sought tariffs and quotas for no other purpose than to rob their neighbour.

I think it ill becomes Deputies to go out of their way to asperse the name and reputation of one of the greatest industrial enterprises which this country has. There is no use closing our eyes to it. I have heard illinformed references made to Guinness's brewery. The only restrictive practice ever practised so far as I know by that brewery was to say to a bottler: "If you bottle anybody else's stout you must use your own label." Some of the largest bottlers bottle Guinness's and Beamish's and other stouts, using their own label without let or hindrance. There is, however, the proviso: "If you want to use the labels which we supply free of charge you have to confine yourself to bottling our stout, because we have always held that that was a quasi-guarantee that there was nothing but Guinness's stout bottled. You can bottle our stout or anybody else's under your own label." Some of the biggest of the bottlers have always done so and there has never been any hard feelings or ill-will or ill-feeling in the brewery against them.

Mr. J. Brennan

They say that you shall have no other brown stout in bottle.

Mr. Dillon

That is if you want to use the brown label. Suppose you do not want to get the brown labels and want to bottle stout under your own label, as several big bottlers in Dublin do, there is no objection to doing so and you can bottle all the brown stout you want.

Mr. J. Brennan

Once the trader signs he has "had it".

Mr. Dillon

I do not think it is desirable to be arguing this across the floor of the House. If he asks for a supply of a certain trade mark label which is supplied free, he undertakes not to bottle any other stout. If he wants to get supplies of stout of any other brands and to bottle all brands under his own label, there is no restriction on his doing so. I think Deputy Brennan will agree that to discuss the affairs of one firm across the House is wholly undesirable. I think it ill becomes us to be taking side swipes at one of the most valuable and public-spirited undertakings in this country.

I commend the attention of the Labour Party to column 820, where the Minister begins the second paragraph of his speech:—

"I am asking the House to agree that where a trade association takes power to exclude any citizen from any trade..."

I ask my friends in the trade union movement to remove from that great and beneficent movement the stigma of saying that in certain departments it operates to exclude from a skilled trade individuals, if for no other reason than that they were born under the wrong roof.

Mr. Hickey

That is not fair, Deputy.

Mr. Dillon

At column 821, Volume 134, of the Official Debates of 31st October, 1952, the Minister said:—

"This Bill which I am asking the Dáil to approve is based on two principles. The first is, as a general rule and subject to public policy, to restrict imports by tariffs or quota arrangements in the interests of national economic development, with the fullest and freest competition in any trade, is in the public interest."

I want to suggest to the House that inside a quota there can be no competition. If it is ascertained that our people habitually consume in a given year 1,000,000 units of a certain article, and the manufacturer succeeds in getting a quota, I think the practice of the Minister's Department is to ask the manufacturer: "How many units can you produce?" Suppose he replies "800,000," the Minister will fix a quota at perhaps 300,000, and he will feel that the surplus of 100,000 over and above —300,000 plus 800,000 gives you 1,100,000 —ought to create a situation in the domestic market of adequate competition. But it never does, because the manufacturer simply folds his arms, sits down, and waits until the 300,000 units are consumed. Then he says: "I will get my price for the 700,000 in any case, and if I succeed in getting my price for 700,000 why sell 800,000?"— and there is nothing anybody here can do about it.

If a man gets a tariff of 10 per cent., 20 per cent., 30 per cent., 40 per cent., 50 per cent., 60 per cent., 70 per cent., 80 per cent., 90 per cent., it does not matter. If he tries to push the profiteering up too high ultimately you could go and say: "I will pay the 90 per cent. tariff and bring stuff in rather than pay a gouger's price to domestic producers." That is not so, if there is a quota. Once the 300,000 units have come in it does not matter what price it is at, we must either do without the commodity or buy what is produced on the domestic market, and when that commodity is made by a ring under a protective quota, in theory you can go to the Department of Industry and Commerce remonstrating, but in fact, you have something else to do without invoking the cumbrous machinery of the Department of Industry and Commerce to investigate your own particular grievance about the price of one article.

Let me tell a story to give you an idea of how quotas work. When I was Minister for Agriculture, by the authority of the Government I bought 100,000 tons of superphosphate of lime from the Dutch superphosphate cartel. When I made the bargain with them, I said: "By the way, when you are selling the 100,000 tons in one parcel, do you not think it would be becoming if you delivered the commodity in Irishmade paper bags." The representative of the Dutch firm said: "I think it would be." I asked him if he would look into it and see if it was a practicable policy. "I will certainly," he said. Now 100,000 tons of superphosphate represented 2,000,000 paper bags. I did not hear for about a month. All this correspondence is in the Minister for Industry and Commerce's Department for I sent it to him. At the end of a month I got a letter from the Dutch people to say they were sorry they were unable to carry out our agreement about the paper bags for reasons set out in the enclosed correspondence.

The enclosed correspondence read as follows: the Dutch manure people approached the manufacturer of paper bags in this country and asked him would he supply 2,000,000 paper bags. The firm in Ireland replied politely that they had a Dutch correspondent and they had an undertaking with the Dutch correspondent that they would not supply paper bags in Holland if the Dutch factory did not supply paper bags in Ireland. The Dutch people then —I think they knew what I thought of arrangements of that character and that that was not a very becoming communication to have to make to me —went themselves to the Dutch paper manufacturers and asked would they object to the Irish firm supplying paper bags for this particular parcel of fertilisers. The Dutch paper firm sent them a letter saying that in the special circumstances of this case they would like their friends in Ireland to know they would take it in no sense amiss if they provided the bags for this consignment of fertilisers intended for Ireland. The final letter from the Irish bag manufacturers was to say that with their existing equipment they had plenty of work to do to keep their business going; they were making a nice profit and they did not want any more. And the paper bags had to be made either in Holland or jute bags had to be used for the consignment.

That to my mind is the mentality born of the quota protection system and I venture to say if the Minister would open up the report of the American experts on industrial efficiency in this country one of the first things they would say is: "If you wrap people in so much cotton wool that they quite luxuriously earn a high standard of living for themselves, how can you expect them to exert themselves to get more trade when they are already earning as much as the Revenue Commissioners allow them to keep? They aim to earn just as much as the Revenue Commissioners will allow them to keep. When they get to the level at which the Revenue Commissioners take everything but 6d. in the £ why should they break their heart and take the economic risks of expanding further?" Mind you, I think this has to be said if the record is to be kept straight. I remember instances in which the most outrageous claims were made by tariff racketeers in this country for extra protection and the blackmail was: "If we do not get it, we will close down and sack the men." I am sorry to say that on one occasion I was approached by the trade unions who asked: "What was I thinking of in acting tough with these people when it might mean men losing their jobs?" I was confronted by a most notorious racketeer, an old warrior with a skin on him as thick as a tortoise's and lying on the tortoise-shell were the very people I was trying to protect from the exploitation which was going to be perpetrated upon them by this warrior.

Mr. Hickey

It is the system you should condemn.

Mr. Dillon

I understood their difficulty and we talked it over. I sent them back to that fellow with a message to go and take a running jump at himself and if he jumped too far he might land where he never intended to land. He did not jump.

There are certain details in this Bill to which I want to refer because I think they are probably oversights. There is one matter in Deputy Larkin's speech to which I refer. He is mistaken and I certainly disagree with him. There is nobody in this House who wants this commission to be more active in pouring the light of day on the activities of these people, but do not let us turn an instrument for liberation and decency in our social life into an instrument of blackmail.

No individual citizen of this State should have the right to initiate proceedings before this commission. The commission should have it. The Minister should have it on behalf of the people. Therefore, if anybody feels that there is something wrong, they can write to the Minister and ask him to refer this matter to the commission to have it investigated. Suppose they imagine the Minister to be improperly lethargic in this matter, they can write to any member of the Opposition; the matter can be raised in the House and the Minister questioned. "Why do you not refer this matter?" If every person who was engaged in business was to have hanging over his head in perpetuity the sword of Damocles that any old dafty had a right to arraign him and make what she or he would call a prima facie case of misfeasance against him before a commission of this kind, life would become intolerable. In theory, if a man were to go before this commission 40 times a year, he ought to be delighted to trot off and defend himself but, in practice, he could be driven out of business and ruined by it and it could become a grave and serious evil and blackmail could arise.

There is ample protection if, on the one hand, the commission have the right to initiate proceedings and, on the other hand, the Minister has the right to initiate proceedings, subject to his liability to be questioned here or to be actuated by motions adopted by Dáil Éireann which, in theory, this House could always pass, directing the Minister to refer any specific question to the commission. In that case I think the Minister is perfectly right to withhold from individuals the right to initiate proceedings before this commission.

There are certain details in the Bill which I cannot imagine will, on reflection, be left there. I think it is altogether a mistake to give the commission the powers under Section 4. Heaven help us, is not the purpose of this legislation to do away with conspiracies to enforce rules of distribution? Is not the purpose of this legislation to release the power of free competition? Why then do we put in Section 4 a power to lay down a code of rules and regulations which after this Bill comes into operation will cease to be a matter for concealment or shame but which the co-conspirators will glory in as having legislative sanction?

In theory, if there were any injustice done by such a code of rules, they could be brought up again and reviewed but for what do we want a code of rules? Our purpose is, by statute, to prevent bad rules. Is that not so? We are not concerned to facilitate combines to make what will hereafter be called good rules. Let them make what rules they like and, if they are not bad rules, let them be, but why should we make Oireachtas Éireann party to what are called "fair trading rules"? Every one of these rules is called a fair trading rule. Ask R.G.D.A.T.A. and they will tell you that they concern themselves with nothing but rules to regulate fair trading, that anything else is anathema. Call in builders' suppliers—call in any ring—and they will explain at infinite length that the sole purpose of their restrictive practices is to protect the interest of the consumer, that they think of nobody else and that if these regulations were not in being the poor consumer would be ruined.

Let the Minister cast his mind back to the glorious performance he put on when he was introducing the Cement Bill. Do you remember when he was reassuring us all that all the restrictive practices in that legislation had one thing in mind—to protect the poor, humble Irish from the voracious intentions of the Danish cement cartel up in Denmark and that, if he let them at us, Copenhagen would strip us bare? Cement Ltd. was established, and who was Cement Ltd. but Mr. Jensen from Copenhagen, and there he is ever since. The Minister will remember every restrictive practice laid down in that Bill. Nothing but Deputy Dillon's obscurantism conceals from his eye the lofty purpose the Minister had in mind to protect only the Irish consumer from the cruel rapacity of those who would otherwise skin him alive. Dáil Éireann swallowed it and we passed the Bill and set up Cement Ltd. and heard that not a trowel of Danish cement would be allowed into this country, and the first man to say "Hear, hear" was Carl Jensen from the chairman's seat, where he still sits.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Individuals should not be mentioned by name.

Mr. Dillon

There is only one chairman of Cement Ltd. and he is the Danish cement cartel. Is not that so? Does anyone deny that? Does anyone challenge that? Does anyone challenge that the firm of Schmitt & Co., the people who establish cement factories, control the Danish cement cartel?

The whole code of the Cement Acts, which are nothing but a code of restrictive regulations, was sold to this House by the Minister as the fruit of his sleepless nights in his anxiety for nothing but the protection of the Irish cement consumer. Look at what we got.

Mr. Allen

You got cement made by Irish labour in Ireland.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Allen—a Daniel come to judgment! The hod carrier, the fellow who wheels the truck, the fellow that uses the shovel, the fellow that swings the iron, they are Irish, but every single executive must come from Scandinavia, and there is not in Cement Ltd. to-day a staff of Irish people fit to manufacture one ton of cement without the Scandinavian key-man.

Mr. Allen

And it is cheaper than in any other country in the world.

Mr. Dillon

If you sell our people into slavery to South African miners or anybody else you will get the product of their labour cheap, if they are to be forever hewers of wood and drawers of water.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill.

Mr. Dillon

I suggest to you, Sir, that the moment this commission is set up the first references I am going to urge on the Minister for Industry and Commerce are the trade practices of Cement Ltd. and its subsidiaries, and I will venture to say that when the commission is finished studying them they will dazzle the eyes of the nation. Do not be under any misapprehension. Cement Ltd., Gloria in excelsis Deo, is embedded in every section of this Bill, and when its ramifications, and its interlocking agreements, and its wholesalers, primary wholesalers, secondary wholesalers, local distributors, retailers and manufacturers come to be examined, we will all be lost in admiration of the powers of salesmanship of the Minister for Industry and Commerce who sold us the code of fair trading rules incorporated in the Cement Acts of Oireachtas Éireann.

May I suggest to him that, having achieved that prodigy, he should rest on his laurels and omit from this Bill Section 4 and the powers enshined therein? We do not want any new rules and particularly we do not want a set of trade restriction rules hallowed and sanctioned by legislation of this Oireachtas, and the Bill does not require it. It takes nothing from the effectiveness of the Bill to leave out Section 4 and Section 5 and I urge the Minister to do it. May I direct his attention to Section 10:—

"It shall be lawful for a court of competent jurisdiction, notwithstanding any rule of law, to grant an injunction on the motion of the Minister or of any other person to enforce compliance with the terms of an Order under Section 8 for the time being in force."

What is the significance of the insertion of the words "notwithstanding any rule of law?" May I suggest to the Minister that it is a most undesirable thing, by the insertion of one sentence in a section of a Restrictive Trade Practices Bill, to sweep away the whole of the rule of law? I suggest to the Minister that it could add nothing of value to the section, that it must give scandal, to begin with, and is certain to move the courts to do all in their power to devise an equitable means of rendering that section nugatory, as unquestionably they ought to do because this House should not by legislation sweep away the whole rule of law.

Now, may I direct the Minister's attention to Section 11 (2):—

"Every person who aids, abets or assists another person...to do anything...the doing of which is declared...to be an offence shall himself be guilty of an offence."

That is an unreasonable proviso. Suppose a firm engaged in a restrictive practice sends a messenger boy around on a bicycle with a letter to one of the co-conspirators to say: "I have a Garda sergeant here, weighing 15½ stone, moseying around among my books and you had better take precautions." Under that section the messenger is guilty of an offence. May I suggest to the Minister that where you are dealing with companies or persons who contravene a law, one ought to define very strictly what criminal collaboration means and not simply provide that anyone who is employed by one of the persons under indictment is himself guilty of an offence, whether he knows he is taking part in the commission of the offence or not?

Would the Minister have regard to Section 12 (2) (c):—

"A statement in writing purporting to be signed by a director of the body corporate to the effect that the person named in the statement has been appointed..."

Surely that statement in order to be judicially recognised should be required to bear the seal of the company? It is a small detail, but it makes the difference between proper authentication of a document which purports to speak on behalf of an incorporated company and the casual signature of a director who may be under considerable stress.

Would the Minister, when concluding, explain to us the difference in Section 13 (1) of procedure under paragraph (a) where the maximum penalty is £500 and procedure under (b) where the penalty on conviction may be £5,000? One is on summary conviction, that is paragraph (a), and the other is conviction on indictment. Who shall determine whether summary proceedings or indictment are to be followed? Surely there ought to be some mandatory provision here, setting out in what circumstances a defendant may be prosecuted by indictment? Otherwise, we might have two persons, one proceeded against under summary jurisdiction and the other by way of indictment, when it may appear to many that their faults were identical, where one is fined £500 and the other exposed to a fine of £5,000, one is exposed to imprisonment not exceeding 12 months while the other is exposed to imprisonment or to penal servitude for a term not exceeding 10 years.

I am bound to say this. In dealing with a restrictive trade practices Bill, does not the House think that we are beginning to get things out of a sense of proportion when we provide in the Bill the possibility of a person being sentenced to ten years' penal servitude? This is not a Bill to suppress rape or mayhem or arson. It is a Bill to prevent tariff racketeers from continuing to do that which they were encouraged by the Fianna Fáil Government to do for the past 20 years; and I think that to give them 10 years' penal servitude for doing just the things they were exhorted to do, as good little Fianna Fáilers would be expected to do, is going too far. I would be content to see them getting no more than hard labour for the peccadilloes we are concerned to correct here. I beg the House to maintain some sense of proportion. Ten years of a man's life in penal servitude is not to be measured in pounds, shillings and pence.

Mr. Allen

Make it nine?

Mr. Dillon

If Deputy Allen or myself went off to gaol for nine years, the devil much of either of us would come out at the other end.

Mr. Allen

We would. The first five years are the worst.

Mr. Dillon

I see the bland smile on the countenance of Deputy Allen in contemplation of that possibility. Let him banish the evil thought from his mind. His Minister is in his Dr. Jekyll mood to-day and I should be prepared for Mr. Hyde if and when he should emerge.

I would direct the Minister's attention to Section 14 (2) and ask the reason for setting aside the Petty Sessions Act. Is there any particular reason why you should extend the period in this Bill to 12 months, if for all other analogous offences the provisions in relation to summary proceedings apply? At all events, I do not mind that. If you want to put that blister on your own spiritual children, I think they deserve it, and it is a good thing that they should bear that mark of your thumb upon them.

I do not know the meaning of Section 15 and, therefore, in humility I would esteem it a favour if the Minister at his convenience would explain it. It is probably something highly technical on which he might perhaps at his convenience get a note.

If the Minister would look at the Schedule, he would find that Section 3 refers to the restriction on interested persons acting as members. It reads:—

"If a member is personally interested in a particular matter with which the commission is dealing, he shall inform the Minister accordingly and shall not, unless authorised by the Minister, act as a member during the consideration of that matter."

I think that is unfortunately drafted, for the simple reason that there may be two views as to whether a man is really interested in a matter or not. Somehow or other, I do not think it is fair to put on him the obligation of determining whether in fact he is or not. I think the initiative must come from the Minister and that we should create in the Bill a position in which the member's duty is to stand ready to serve when called on to do so, leaving on the Minister's shoulders the responsibility of saying: "Well, now, the three members of the commission are Messrs. A, B and C; here is something coming up about which I think we should ask member A if he has any interest; I can discuss it with him and if he has I can ask him to stand aside and appoint a substitute." It is not fair to put the members of the commission, who may in perfect good faith go in and take part in the proceedings, in the difficulty that somebody may ask here in this House "whether the Minister is aware that Mr. A, at present examining the case of boot manufacturers, sells bootlaces in his establishment in Ballydehob". The responsibility should be on the Minister to say: "With all relevant information at my disposal, I take the initiative myself in dismissing him from this board of arbitration", rather than have the Minister say that "the member of the commission sat not realising that anyone would make this representation and I can agree with the member of the commission." I think the initiative should lie with the Minister to say that it is proper for the members of the commission to inquire into it, and that he should take upon his shoulders the responsibility of determining whether they had any interest in the matter to be discussed and, if so, the responsibility of asking them to stand aside.

Deputy Morrissey has already dealt with the question of making a member of the Garda Síochána an authorised person for the purpose of this Bill. When I read this section, I read it to be "a member of the Garda Síochána authorised in writing by the commission for the purposes of this paragraph." I think Deputy Morrissey is probably right that it is any member of the Garda or a person authorised by the commission. Surely, on reflection, the Minister will realise that it is quite unsuitable to draw the Garda into these proceedings at all. The job of the Gardaí is to bring criminals to justice and to prevent the commission of crime. It is true that they engage in the collection of statistics and certain works of that kind where there is not in potentia any possibility of the discovery of crime. When you bring members of the Garda Síochána into the business of inquiring into circumstances and facts which may ultimately lead to a prosecution, invariably their initiative in the matter puts the person whom they visit on his defence. I suggest to the Minister that the probability of the Guards being employed for this work is remote and that a much more sensible arrangement would be to strike out the words “member of the Garda Síochána” and leave it simply “means a member of the commision or any person authorised for the purposes of this paragraph.”

With regard to sub-section (b), Section 2, the Minister will see there "to require the person who carries on such activity and any person employed in connection therewith to produce to any officer any books..." I urge upon the Minister that the fundamental principle of the enforcement of the law should be that the penalty and the duty should devolve upon a responsible officer of the company, if you are dealing with a company, or with the employer himself. It is a rotten thing to send representatives of the Government of the country into a place of business and to put a trusted employee into the horrible dilemma of having either to involve his employer in disagreeable proceedings or break the law. That is not the responsibility of the employee. The employee's job is to carry out the lawful commands of his employer and the more faithfully he does that the better citizen he is. It is a rotten thing to go in and if the employer should prove intractable or fail to give the co-operation required of him under this Bill say to the employee: "Split the gaff on this fellow. I appeal to you not only to help in the administration of the law but I warn you that if you attempt to maintain any loyalty to this man you will be subject to ten years' penal servitude if the Minister proceeds against you on indictment."

I remember when Minister for Agriculture that a question arose in regard to costing in the flour-milling industry. It was suggested that a regulation should be made whereby the cost accountant should have the right, which he did not get, to go beyond the miller to his employee. I said I would never sign any such Order, that if we had any quarrel with the miller and could not settle the matter by argument then we could prosecute in the court. I would never ask an officer to go to a trusted employee who had spent his whole life working for a person and put him in a dilemma. I would impress upon the Minister that he should remove that from the Bill, and face the fact that if a company or an individual fails in its responsibility the procedure should be to go into court and not put employees in a horrible dilemma.

I am delighted that this Bill was brought in, that it will be passed. So long as Fianna Fáil is in office it is the father and mother of all frauds, but Fianna Fáil will not be in office long. The Bill has potentialities for great good. I would cheerfully elide from it every single section that provides for a fine or imprisonment. I do not believe it is necessary and, upon my word, I do not think it is desirable for the House to say that it is the intention to clap citizens into prison for ten years. I would willingly take all these sections out of the Bill. Such powers will never be used so long as Fianna Fáil depends for its return to office on the money of the racketeers; but they are going out. They are dwindling and mouldering away. The Bill, without its penal sections, would be a searchlight which can in due time be turned on the spiritual children of Fianna Fáil. I want that Bill to be a searchlight to turn on the spiritual children of the Fianna Fáil Party, the tariff racketeers. I said this Bill was in certain respects a contemptible fraud. Yes, so long as we are depending upon Fianna Fáil to enforce it. I look forward to its being an instrument of great value in the cleansing of the body politic of this country, the tariff racketeering parasites who have fed upon our blood for so long, when Fianna Fáil have been replaced by a better Government in God's good time.

Mr. J. Brennan

Like all other Deputies who spoke, I want to express my belief that this is the nearest thing to the perfect instrument to deal with the situation which arises in respect of restrictive trade practices. It is obvious that the Minister has examined the position from every angle before he decided on that type of legislation. If he were to decide to make certain restrictive practices illegal he would not be effectively dealing with the situation but by making provision for permission to examine all or any acts which might be suspect he made proper provision for distinguishing between what might be inimical to the welfare of the community and what might not. There are many trade associations which are not detrimental to the welfare of the community; there are many restrictions which are necessary for the success of the particular organisation or trade concerned; and there are even restrictive practices which are damaging but which, at the same time, contain a certain amount of good. The Bill as drafted provides that such things can be dealt with according to their merits or demerits.

The speech we have heard from Deputy Dillon had little or no reference to the problem at all. He merely availed of the opportunity to give expression to his heart's desire, of which every member of the Dáil is aware, that we should have foreign goods pouring into this country, morning, noon and night. He betrayed his hatred of Irish industry and his contempt for anything established here in a successful way by the Fianna Fáil industrial drive. The country is well aware of his attitude towards that and will not take seriously any of his allegations that restrictive trade practices are due merely to the tariff protection afforded to industries to enable them to develop. They are not. Some of the most damaging restrictive practices we have have no relation whatever to firms which secured protective tariffs and many of them relate to goods produced outside this country; but I know that if free trade were allowed and if foreign goods could be dumped here ad lib, we would have no restrictive trade practices and we know how a future Government, which Deputy Dillon's wishful thinking would replace a Fianna Fáil Government, would deal with the situation.

He visualised a system whereby the dumping of foreign-manufactured goods into this country, without a tariff wall, would, in its own way, prevent any restrictive practices. Nobody in the country desires to see that means of stopping such practices in operation. Many of the associations which are becoming detrimental to the welfare of the community were necessary for the success of certain firms originally, and they helped them to climb to the stage at which they could feel they had made their position secure and at which they were able to produce at home and to employ Irish labour which otherwise they might not have been able to do.

When we talk about dealing with firms guilty of restrictive practices detrimental to the community, we should remember that these firms into which private individuals have put their capital have certain rights and that there is a limit to the extent to which we should go to curtail their development. I do not believe that every chemist's shop, every grocer's shop and every public-house should be selling wireless sets, but I believe that those who sell them should be entitled to sell them for whatever figure they wish, without running the risk of having their names struck off the list of people who may be supplied with such goods. There is a fairly large category of people who would be eligible to deal with such goods, but I do not believe that every individual should have a large emporium which, in the long run, would mean that each would be detrimental to the other and would result in failures in business. Neither do I believe that every householder should have a petrol pump stuck outside his door, a system which would lead in the end to a position in which nobody was making a living out of the business; but no village should be left without such an amenity as a petrol pump, just because the garage in the neighbouring town can object to and prevent the erection of a petrol pump.

There is a measure of restriction necessary for the success of business and the success of those engaged in it. There must be some restriction in order to ensure that success attends the efforts of those people who risk their money in dealing in the distribution of goods. In the same way, I think the local mechanic who is prepared to use his little premises as a repair shop in the village should not be precluded from securing supplies of necessary accessories merely because he has not got the 3,000 or 5,000 square feet of space necessary to enable him to become a member of a particular trade association. These are the things that really affect the liberty of the citizen and very often deprive him of the opportunity of securing materials at a much lesser price than he has to pay. These restrictions can in no way be traced to protective tariffs introduced by Fianna Fáil or anybody else. I submit that the tirade of abuse which we heard from the previous speaker was merely a venting of his pent-up spite against the success of the industrial development drive initiated by Fianna Fáil.

I congratulate the Minister on the care with which he has forged the instrument before the House, because it is one which cannot be used unduly against any concern. We are anxious that as many concerns as possible which engage in private enterprise should be allowed to succeed and enabled to employ Irish labour at home. If we are to depend on our present system of private enterprise, we should not be harsh in our attitude towards these people as Deputy Larkin insinuated in his speech when he portrayed them as a lot of racketeers and persons not fitted to take part in the industrial life of the country at all. We have seen the alternative to private enterprise in other countries and we thought very little of it. We have seen how the taxes of the community can be squandered by nationalised organisations under the system in other countries. Private enterprise is a system we want to encourage at present. It is a system under which individuals are induced to put their own earnings into industry and just as the farmer who buys a farm has a right to make a success of his farming business and make a profit out of it, so has the man who risks his capital in an industry the right to be protected and not made the target of every attack in this House and of every piece of legislation that can be directed against him. Otherwise, our industrial drive would never succeed.

The Bill is carefully framed to attack restrictive practices only where they can be proved to be inimical to the welfare of the community. I am satisfied that it has been so carefully drafted that it will not militate against fair associations or fair trade practices which sometimes may appear to be restrictive but which on examination are found to be nothing more than essential associations which are indispensable to the success of the firms concerned.

Deputy Morrissey was fair enough in his speech on the Bill. His approach to it was that which one would expect from a person who was in a responsible position and who had examined the facts carefully, but I do not agree with him when he said that the Bill would in no way influence the cost of living. It can be used in many instances to provide consumers with certain goods much more cheaply than they are sold at present because we have many restrictive practices at the present time which really amount to preventing the trader from selling under a fixed minimum price at the risk of losing his supply of certain goods.

Deputy McGrath from Cork mentioned the difficulty of buying a wireless set at a reduced price. Not so long ago I was asked by a number of people who had decided to buy a wireless for a poor person in hospital to try to obtain it at a lower rate than the fixed price, but I was unable to do so because the traders pointed out that if they were to supply me at less than the catalogued price of these goods they would risk being struck off the list of the Wireless Dealers' Association and prevented from dealing in such goods in the future. That restriction should not operate. Many traders throughout the country would be satisfied with less than 33? per cent. profit on goods of that type. I mention such goods only as an example. There are many others.

The most ruthless restrictive practices we know have nothing to do with protective tariffs, tariffs responsible for the development of our industries, and I do not think we should attack industrialists as they were attacked by the previous speaker. We should encourage them, and assure them that the Bill will not be directed against anything which is not inimical to the welfare of the community as a whole.

I would congratulate the Minister for forging for this House a piece of legislation which is nearly perfect to deal with a situation which could not be dealt with by anything other than the Bill we are now discussing.

Mr. Cogan

First of all it is necessary for me and I think it desirable to congratulate the Minister on the lucid statement he gave the House in introducing the Bill. It has come to be expected of him that in putting legislation before the House he will always explain it fully, as far as possible take the House into his confidence, and be in that way helpful to all Deputies in passing legislation through and in securing for it fair consideration. At the end of his introductory statement I asked a simple question. I asked whether this Bill would affect agricultural goods in just the same way as manufactured goods. I did not ask the question in that form, but that was my intention. The Minister politely informed me that it would, but when I asked that question there was an angry growl from the Opposition Benches, and the Deputies there almost all together demanded that I should have read it. Let it be clear that this is a Bill the mere reading of which is hardly sufficient, the text of which does not contain all that is implied by the Bill. It is a Bill which in effect sets up a body to carry out certain functions which are not too clear, but which we all know to be essential. Therefore, I think it was the right of any Deputy to ask the Minister for further information in addition to all he had given in this introduction. The Bill applies to goods of all kinds, as I understand it. In answer to the point raised by Deputy Morrissey the term "goods" does not include the harrowed bodies or blemished souls of ex-Ministers.

Mr. Morrissey

Or disappointed Deputies.

Mr. Cogan

It includes goods which are produced. According to the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce, if, when he goes down to Templemore or elsewhere, he is not plastered over the front page of the Irish Press he can invoke the aid of the Fair Trade Commission in order to secure justice. I think that the ex-Minister was a little bit frivolous in dealing with an important Bill of this kind and I do not think he could have been serious in making that point, particularly when he realised that his fellow-Deputy from Tipperary, who proposed another toast, is excluded completely from the columns of the Irish Independent; that is another restrictive practice.

Mr. Morrissey

I often wondered what a lickspittle was.

Mr. Cogan

Oh dear! Oh dear! poor Deputy Morrissey. I am sorry for him but I do not want to deal with Deputy Morrissey as an individual.

An Ceann Comhairle

Suppose the Deputy dealt with the Bill. That would be a lot better.

Mr. Cogan

Deputy Morrissey does not come under the terms of the Bill. He cannot be described as "goods" unless he were to get in under the shaky heading of "damaged goods".

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us get on with the Bill.

Mr. Cogan

Deputy Morrissey did make one clear-cut definite statement in the course of his speech. He said that this Bill will not affect the cost of living and almost in the same breath he said that he would support it. When we realise the cost of administration in this country and the cost of government we should be slow to add to the administrative machinery another board or commission which, in the opinion of Deputy Morrissey, does not achieve any purpose. If he were sincere in his statement that the Bill will not affect the cost of living I think that his rightful place would be in opposition to it.

Mr. Morrissey

Deputy Cogan does not know anybody's rightful place.

Mr. Cogan

I am sorry if I hurt Deputy Morrissey's feelings.

Mr. Morrissey

You did not. You only create a feeling of nausea.

Mr. Cogan

Deputy Morrissey thinks that he can operate his mock auctioneer's tactics on me, but he is not going to get away with it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Cogan will allow me. There is no need to refer on this Bill to a person's profession or calling at all. I do not see any reason why that should be dragged in.

Mr. Cogan

I apologise. However, I think that Deputy Morrissey ought to give as patient a hearing to other Deputies as he expects for himself.

If Deputy Morrissey believes that this Bill will not achieve the purpose which it sets out to achieve, namely, a reduction in the cost of goods by the elimination of the causes of unjustifiable profiteering in the production and distribution of goods he should indicate his opposition to it. I should certainly oppose this Bill if I thought for one moment that it will not have the effect of promoting competition amongst those who are engaged in the production and distribution of goods. I believe it will encourage competition and I believe that unrestricted competition is the most effective means of reducing prices.

As the Minister has pointed out, and as every Deputy who has spoken has admitted, there are restrictive practices in operation over the whole field of production and distribution and particularly in the field of distribution. Attempts have been made inside and outside this House to represent this Bill as an attack on Irish manufacturers. Attempts have been made to convey the idea that the only people who are against this Bill are the Irish manufacturers, but attempts have also been made to convey the impression that the only people who will be affected by this Bill are Irish manufacturers.

It throws a considerable light on this question when we hear it said that there are cases of restrictive trade practices in which the distributors and not the manufacturers are at fault. Deputy Morrissey cited a glaring case of a manufacturer who sought to reduce the price of a commodity and who was sternly refused permission to do so.

When Deputy Dillon comes into this House and launches a fierce attack on tariff racketeers and industrialists he seems to me to be very wide of the mark. In his opening speech on this Bill the Minister explained very clearly the different groups of people who will be affected by it. He gave the House a list of certain restrictive operations that are affecting trade in this country. He pointed out that refusal to supply goods on trade terms to persons who are not members of an association is an example of a restrictive trade practice. He mentioned that that operated in regard to building materials and, strangely enough, in regard to newspapers. Surely such a restriction could not be described as having anything but the effect of limiting competition, thereby raising the price of the commodity or preventing a reduction when the ordinary operation of trade would bring about that reduction.

The Minister cited exclusive dealing arrangements—arrangements by which certain powerful firms refuse to supply goods to a trader unless that trader agrees to sell no other commodity of a similar nature made by a rival concern. Petrol is an outstanding example under that heading. Some of the bigger firms refuse to supply petrol unless the trader agrees to confine his petrol sales to the particular brand supplied by them. Guinness's stout was also mentioned in this House. I was impressed by the zeal with which Deputy Dillon rushed in to defend Guinness. Evidently the fact that the Guinness firm was in existence before the Fianna Fáil Government came into office is sufficient reason for Deputy Dillon to regard them as worthy of special protection from him. Everybody knows that Guinness exercise a very firm restrictive and, I would say, almost tyrannical control in their trade. The Minister cited other examples——

Mr. Morrissey

Yes, but the Minister did not say that or even imply it.

Mr. Cogan

The Minister cited other examples of restrictive trade practices. He convinced the House that there was need for this Bill so far as goods and commodities are concerned. There is no use in one member of the Opposition Front Bench coming in here and describing this Bill as a fraudulent Bill while other prominent members, including Deputy Morrissey and Deputy Larkin, welcome the Bill as a reasonable contribution to the solution of our problems of production, distribution and marketing.

The weakness in this Bill, and I think it is a weakness, is that it is confined to goods and to goods only, and that it does not apply to services. Why should the person who is engaged in the sale of goods or in the production of goods be liable to prosecution and penalty under this Bill when it becomes an Act, while no such penalties apply in regard to the supply of services? Why should restrictive practices be so sternly condemned when they are engaged in by retailers' or wholesalers' associations or manufacturers' associations? Why should there not be the same condemnation of similar restrictive practices when they are engaged in by trade unionists? That seems to me to be a question which thousands of people all over the country are asking.

Deputy Larkin came into the House to-day and, unlike his usual form, he launched into a fierce attack upon everybody engaged in private enterprise in this country. Generally we find Deputy Larkin moderate and restrained but to-day he went all out in a fierce onslaught on everybody who either produced or sold goods as a means of living or for a profit. He described them as selfish, as people who were not engaged in business for the good of the community. Is it not true that there is an element of selfishness in every human organisation and institution? Is it not true that there is as much selfishness and self-seeking in the trade union movement as there is in any association of farmers or people engaged in trade?

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

He gave examples and it is up to you to give examples of any case of selfishness in the trade union movement if you can. There is no use in making a broad general statement.

Mr. Cogan

I can do so.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

That is a sincere invitation.

Mr. Cogan

There are cases in which important branches of the transport industry were closed down and men forced out of employment because they would not join a certain union. That is one example. It is happening all over the country. The most ruthless measures have been employed against men in order to drive them out of one trade union or to force them to join another union which they did not wish to join. In the same way we have ruthless restrictions which prevent honest workers from putting their sons into a particular trade or craft. Those are all restrictive practices. It may be that in some cases there are justifiable restrictions even in regard to the supply of goods, but restrictions, if they are justifiable, should be imposed by law and not by any hole or corner organisation. They should be imposed by the laws of this House and the laws of this House only. A beginning is made by this Bill. The Bill will provide any person who finds himself victimised in regard to the carrying out of his business, who finds that he is refused a chance of setting up in business for himself or of entering into any legitimate trade or calling, with an opportunity of stating his case before an impartial body.

Here I think a very important matter arises. The Bill, as I said at the outset, does not define very clearly the functions of the Fair Trade Commission. It has pretty wide powers of investigation. It is therefore all-important that the men who will constitute this board should be men with the highest sense of responsibility and with the highest knowledge of the task which they are called on to perform. They must be men who are prepared to weigh every issue fairly and carefully. They must be men free from that narrow, bitter class prejudice which Deputy Larkin demonstrated or that peculiar bitter prejudice which Deputy Dillon demonstrated in this House.

They must be men with broad minds and fair minds and at the same time they must be men who, like the Tánaiste, are determined to battle with and overcome this nation's problems and who will face every difficulty with the long-term view of advancing the nation economically and putting it on a sounder foundation. I am quite in agreement with those who have said that the selection of the personnel of this commission will be a task of considerable difficulty, a task that will require very considerable care.

I think that the Minister has amply justified this Bill. The statements that have been made from the Opposition side of the House, contradictory and illogical though some of them may be, have not weakened the case for this Bill. There might be perhaps a little exception in regard to that. Even in his endorsement of this Bill, Deputy Larkin displayed an amount of prejudice and an anxiety to destroy private enterprise which I think should make everybody extremely careful in approaching a question of this kind. We have got to be sure that the steps that are being taken under this Bill will be in all cases justifiable and that no firm or individual will be unjustly or unfairly treated. That, I think, is very essential and the House on the Committee Stage of the Bill will be only too anxious to provide the necessary safeguards, wherever it is felt that there is danger of grave injury being done to any person engaged in either the production or the distribution of goods. I think the aim of the House should be to ensure that production and distribution will go on at an ever-increasing rate and that the opportunities of employment through private enterprise will continue to expand. That should be the aim of every Party in this House. All that the Bill seeks to ensure, and that I hope it will ensure, that nobody is allowed to put a spanner into the works of production or distribution, that nobody is allowed to reap excessive profits by combinations which restrict free competition.

There are people I suppose outside the House who will describe this as a socialistic or semi-socialistic measure. I think the safest answer to those people is that for over 50 years we have had similar legislation operating in the United States, a country which I think is not very favourable to socialistic legislation. If the people of the United States, with their strong tendency towards private enterprise, found it necessary to introduce legislation of this kind many years ago, I think it is only natural that the people of Ireland should be equally favourable to such a measure.

While this Bill will apply to agricultural products, I do not think that the farming community are unduly worried about the effect of its operation. The farmers are a free, independent section of the community, and I do not think anyone will ever accuse them of being unduly predisposed towards combinations or class organisations. They are people who, I think, are rather too much inclined, if I may say it, to compete against each other, even in the marketing of their goods. Anyhow, they have never been successful in securing excessive prices for their produce. The people who buy food in the shops frequently complain of the high prices they have to pay, but I suggest that if they were to examine those prices right back to the source of production, they would usually find that there is a very wide margin between the prices which they have to pay and the prices which the farmers receive for the particular commodity produced on the farm.

Therefore, as far as the farmers are concerned, they welcome this particular piece of legislation, and hope that it will operate to eliminate profiteering, as I think I must describe it, in the sale of goods to farmers. I think it is particularly desirable that the margin of profit between the price of a tractor, whether it is produced here or imported into the country, and the price at which it is delivered to the farmer, should be reduced to the minimum. That margin is far too wide. The same applies, I think, to agricultural machinery and implements. There is a very wide margin of profit allowed to the people engaged in distributing those goods to the farmers.

I think it is not desirable that such wide margins should operate or that the raw materials of agriculture should provide wide margins of profit for people who are not engaged in agriculture or in the production of those raw materials. In that way, I think the Bill will not only reduce the cost of living, but that it will also reduce, I hope, the cost of production to the farmers. Those who are really desirous of this nation's welfare are more anxious to see the costs of production to the farmer reduced than to see higher prices for agricultural produce, because, by reducing the farmer's costs, you can hope to make a permanent advance in agriculture.

There is one last word I have to say to those who have ascribed all our economic evils to tariff racketeers. All I can say to them is that they were three years in office. Deputy Dillon was three years in the Government, and all those tariffs which he found in operation were retained during those three years, and even some new tariffs were added. That, I think, is the most effective answer that one can make to those who say that the only people really responsible for the imposition of tariffs and the promotion of industry are the people on the Government side of the House.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

Before speaking in a detailed way on this Bill, I should like, first of all, to say that I repudiate the statement which was made here by a very highly respected colleague of my own concerning Cement, Limited. I am not in the habit of introducing personal notes into debates in this House, but I have something to do with the cement trade. I sell a certain amount of cement—indeed, I think a pretty large amount. In that respect, I may say that the return which my company gets for selling cement is indeed a very small one, so that I am not beholden to the cement company in any way. I do not hold any shares in that company. Neither does any member of my family, so far as I know.

I have long regarded the cement company operating here in Ireland as one of the model companies which we have. I can remember the time when we imported cement from various places. It was not always up to the standard which we would like to see and which is so vitally necessary in the case of cement, above all products, because of the fact that it is the basis and the foundation of so much building in this country. If we had not a first-class product we would have untold chaos in the building industry. To my knowledge, Cement Limited have never produced anything but the very best quality of cement, and they have produced it at a fair price; indeed I think at a somewhat cheap price—cheaper than it would be possible to import cement at the present moment.

Therefore, I feel that I would be failing in my duty as a citizen and as a Deputy if I did not say that, despite whatever disagreements individual Deputies may have with Cement Limited over this policy or that policy, they certainly have produced a first-class quality product and have sold it at a very cheap price indeed. Speaking as a person who sells it, I want to say that they have not in way lined the pockets of those engaged in the distribution trade. Indeed we have had a considerable quarrel with them in that respect. I think it is only fair to the House that I should say that.

In connection with the Bill, I find myself, in company with the rest of the commercial and industrial community, in a rather difficult position. I think that the Minister was not quite straightforward with us in his opening speech. I think he has kept a number of his best cards close to his chest, and probably when he is closing this debate we will have the position clarified to a much greater degree. Certainly, at the present moment there is a good deal of confusion and, possibly, a certain amount of alarm, caused by this lack of knowledge of what the Minister really means. He is going to set up a fair trade commission under this Bill. It looks as if the question of deciding what will be done, or of what will be regarded as restrictive practices, will be left largely to that commission. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.