When the debate was adjourned last night, I was referring to the activities of some rings against which this Bill is aimed. I think it will be agreed by everybody, as it appears to be agreed by every Deputy, that the organisation and activities of these rings are a growing menace to the people. I have long felt that if the malpractices against which this Bill is aimed were eliminated, there would be a substantial reduction in the cost of living. The timber ring to which Deputy Norton referred and the other rings in the building industry inflate the price of building materials and make houses much dearer than they ought to be, and a curbing of the activities of the gentlemen operating these rings in that industry would ensure that the ordinary people, anxious to become owners of their own houses, could purchase these houses at a much lower price than the price they have to pay at the moment.
In the clothing industry there are also many rings the main purpose of which is to keep the cost to the consumer up. If they were curbed and controlled and prevented from operating in the way they do, there would be a very substantial reduction in the cost of clothing. It is in the public interest that there should be legislation to ensure that these groups of individuals who deliberately set out to rob the public will be dealt with drastically by law for their offences against the public and against the public interest.
I referred to one organisation last night, the wireless dealers' association. There have been numerous complaints both here and elsewhere in relation to this association which consists of a small organised body that controls the association in their own interests, refuses to allow newcomers into it and actually prevents people who have been earning their livelihood in that business from getting supplies from the manufacturers or radio supplies generally from the wholesale dealers.
The very fact that there is a Bill such as this on the stocks will, I think, make those rings, groups and associations examine into their own practices. Perhaps the threat of the operation of the Bill will have the effect of removing a number of the malpractices to which nearly every Deputy has referred. There has been a demand from intelligent, organised opinion for this Bill. We are concerned now with the effectiveness of the machinery provided here. I think the machinery is too cumbersome. The operation of the machinery provided under this Bill will take too long. I would like to see a section in the Bill proscribing certain practices as being both unfair and criminal so that the particular practices about which we all know can be dealt with straight away by the courts.
The machinery proposed under the Bill for the examination of fair trading rules could then operate in its own leisurely way to deal generally with practices of long standing which are not as objectionable as some of the ones to which reference has been made. The organisation of a ring for the purpose of increasing prices should be made a criminal offence punishable as an offence against the public. A combination of individuals for the purpose of withholding supplies that should be available in the public interest should also be proscribed as a criminal offence in the nature of a conspiracy against the public. A section such as that in the Bill could be operated immediately and many of the malpractices and the objectionable practices against which the Bill is directed would very quickly disappear.
As I understand the structure of the Bill, it is proposed to establish a fair trading commission and that body may, on its own initiative, or at the request of an association representing persons engaged in the supply and distribution of goods prepare and publish fair trading rules. I think that section should be amplified. The Minister should have power to direct the commission to prepare such rules. It may be argued that if the Minister strongly suggests to the commission that such and such an investigation should be made, or that such and such rules should be drawn up those concerned would on their own initiative deal with the matter.
If a group of citizens were to make a request to the commission that they would, on their own initiative, as a consequence of requests made to them, prepare and publish fair trading rules, that could be done, but I think that leaves it rather loose and where a substantial body of the public, particularly an organised body, or the representatives of the public here or in local authorities request the commission to prepare these rules the commission ought to do so. That should be specifically provided in the Bill Where the commission prescribes fair trading rules and where it is discovered subsequently that these rules have lost their effect for one reason or another the commission should be empowered to make new rules in order to amend the old ones. There should be specific provision for that.
The same remarks would apply to the powers of the commission to make inquiry into the traditions which obtain in regard to the supply and distribution of goods. That section should also be amplified to make it obligatory on the commission, if there is public demand for it, to hold such investigation. The commission, having reported to the Minister, may make an order. I think that Section 8 is one of the most difficult sections in the Bill and that it ought to be examined very carefully. I may say that I agree with the intention behind the section but I can see the Supreme Court here deciding that the operating of some of the powers in that section might be unconstitutional. For that reason, I think that the section should be examined very carefully by the best available authorities to ensure that what is intended by the section will be absolutely and without question within the law.
The Bill provides that when the Minister makes an Order, the Order will be laid before the House and that it will not have any effect unless there is an Act of the Oireachtas to confirm it, and to give it the force of law. That is where I can see a great hold-up. A considerable amount of time would obviously be spent in the investigation of a particular practice, and then the bringing in of a Bill here and in the Seanad to give effect to that Order and to make it lawful would hold up the effectiveness of the Order for a very long time. I take it that a Bill of this kind would be the same as any other Bill and that it would have to go through all its stages here. If the Order is directed against a powerful organisation, it is obvious that, no matter what Minister or what Party may be in power, the Opposition for the time being will fight that particular Order tooth and nail in the interests of the powerful organisation concerned. Not only would it be fought here, but it would also be fought in the other House.
From one's experience of the amount of time available for what one might term the ordinary public business of the Dáil, a Bill to give effect to an Order will not be one to which the Government of the day will give priority and will put forward specifically. Therefore, I can see the gravest of delays in that machinery and I can see the whole effect of the legislation nullified by the procedure which must be adopted in this House before it becomes law. I suggest that that particular provision ought to be reexamined because if it is left in the Bill it would be a long time before any Order made by the Minister would be given the effect of law and create a criminal offence in respect of which the criminal courts of this country could operate against the offender.
In Section 10 the Bill provides that it shall be lawful for a court of competent jurisdiction to grant an injunction on the motion of the Minister to enforce compliance with the terms of an Order made under Section 8. To my mind that section is phrased wrongly. It simply says that it shall be lawful for a court to grant the injunction but it does not oblige the court to grant it. Our courts are just like everybody else. We hear judges from day to day express their own particular views on matters relating, say, to private property, to the public welfare, and so forth. The court, after the Dáil has gone into this whole matter, will be left in the following position. Section 10 simply says that it shall be lawful for them to do it. It does not say that they are obliged to do it but, if they do it, it will not be unlawful. Some judges, as the public may understand, might consider that they should not grant the injunction although it would be the wish of this House and of the public that such injunction should be granted. For these reasons, I think that that provision should be looked into again and suitably amended.
Some of the later sections make provision for serious punishments for contravention of the Order. I think everyone will agree that a person who would contravene an Order under those circumstances or an Order properly made in the public interest should be dealt with drastically. I was surprised at some of the criticism we heard in this House under that particular heading. I think that an offender of that type is the worst conceivable type of criminal and that he should be visited with the severest punishment which the Constitution of this State would allow.
Under the Bill, a person may be dealt with summarily or he may be dealt with by indictment. I take it that the discretion in that case would be in the Attorney-General to decide whether he would proceed against the offender by way of summary proceedings, or by way of indictment. In the case of summary proceedings, the punishment is limited and laid down here. The man will be brought before a court of competent jurisdiction, the District Court, and he will be punished if found guilty. He will have the right to appeal to a Circuit Court judge. If, on the other hand, he is tried on indictment, the offence is put in the hands of a jury of 12 individuals who will decide whether or not he is guilty.
I do not know whether that is the correct form of trial for that type of offender—a trial before a jury of 12 men, some of whom may be engaged in the same business as he is, and any of whom may, under the law as it stands, prevent the jury arriving at a verdict of guilty. From the point of view of the accused, it may be a jury of people who are outraged by his conduct and who would be very anxious to find him guilty even on rather slight evidence, so that it is again a matter of consideration as to whether offences of this kind against the public interest should not be dealt with all the time by means of summary procedure. The difficulty will always arise that the Attorney-General will send one man for trial on indictment and deal with another man summarily, although both perhaps will have committed the same offence. I think that these provisions of the Bill will require considerable examination on the Committee Stage.
Deputy Costello yesterday commented rather drastically on the method of appointment and the responsibilities of the commission. He did say, in very specific language, that it would be a political tribunal, that it would act in a political way, that the people appointed would be politicans. appointed because of their political views, and he suggested that a fairer or a better way was to have matters dealt with by the judiciary who are, as he said, independent. On the basis of appointment, no member of this House will say that judges are not appointed after political considerations are taken into account.
