I spoke for only a few minutes the other day and I have very little more to say. I see here in a well-known journal of the Irish manufacturers criticism of the Government and the Minister for introducing this Bill.
Restrictive Trade Practices Bill, 1952— Second Stage (Resumed).
The Deputy had better be careful.
Those people have a very big responsibility. Instead of criticising destructively the position that the Minister was forced into, they should constructively criticise the people who were responsible for forcing the Minister and the Government to bring in this measure. I was delighted to see an end to rationing and to see the inspectors going. Everyone wants to see free trading and people left alone. It is implied in this criticism I speak of that the Minister created this, that and the other. The Minister has helped all those people who are in industry now, as also have other Ministers for Industry and Commerce.
These people who have a stake in this country should come out into the open and say: "This country is ours, we are trying to make the best we can of it, and we are going to assist the Minister for Industry and Commerce in doing a difficult job." They accused the Minister here in their article of prying into their business and doing things of that kind. May I ask these people, through the House, if it is a popular thing for any Minister to do? The answer definitely is "No".
Would the Deputy mind quoting what he is dreaming about?
I will give the Deputy the whole lot—he can sit in bed at home and read it. I am only referring to it because, in my opinion, the people expect that industrialists in this young State of ours would make every effort, as responsible decent people, to co-operate with the Minister for Industry and Commerce. If they came out into the open, even at the last moment, they might make it possible for the Minister to avoid implementing the various sections of this Bill. The obligation is on them to do it. Whether it be the case of manufacturers or wholesalers, public opinion was crying out for some measure of this kind. These people need not start shifting the blame to others, the responsibility is theirs, and if they are big enough they will organise and say to the Minister: "We will co-operate with you and see that these trade rings are broken down; it is as much our country as yours, and we are not going to make it impossible for you to carry on." Instead of that, we have the usual destructive criticism that we have had from time to time, from people who should know better, people who have been encouraged and helped in every way possible. Why should any group try to corner the market for their selfish ends?
Why should anybody come along and take advantage of any protection they are getting for their own selfish ends? Why do they not play the game? We are a young State struggling to see that everybody living in it gets a fair deal. These people should not come along and blame a responsible Minister for doing something for which the public are crying out. Every Deputy has received complaints and I am sure that the Minister himself received complaints, not only since he resumed office in 1951 but prior to that. I am also sure that Deputy Morrissey, the Minister's predecessor, received similar complaints.
We have to face a very difficult task and those people who are in a position should not make our job harder than it is. They should come out into the open and say: "Minister for Industry and Commerce, we are going to give you our whole-hearted co-operation to see that these rings will not exist. We are going to see that manufacturers, wholesalers and everyone else will give their co-operation. This would prevent the Minister from sending inspectors round to ask them to do their duty and act in an honourable way as citizens. They should co-operate with the Minister and his Department, who deserve it from them.
We are behind you.
This Bill, as the Minister explained it, is directed at associations of traders and others who are engaged in practices of different types, some of which were enumerated by the Minister in his opening remarks, which amount to restrictive trade practices of one sort or another and retail price maintenance practices.
It has been pointed out here and, indeed, elsewhere by those groups of traders and associations that many of the objects of these associations of traders may, indeed, be laudable. I have no doubt that many associations which exist in this State do, indeed, fulfil a very real need and we cannot impute any restrictive practices to them.
It has been alleged, I think quite correctly, that these trade associations do preserve certain minimum standards and do see that the public are well served by the members of the various associations. They also maintain, by retail price maintenance, the avoidance of the system of sale known as "loss, leader" selling which undoubtedly, if carried out on a large scale, could upset the market and seriously affect the distribution of certain goods. I think that by guaranteeing prices sometimes these trade associations bring about a set of circumstances in which a good quality type of goods is produced by manufacturers when guaranteed prices are given to them.
While admitting that trade associations can bring about beneficial results to the community by retail prices of one sort or another, I think it must be appreciated—I think this House does appreciate it—that these trade associations can and, in fact, do act in a way that is very immical and harmful to the interests of the community. While these excuses can be made and, as I say, justifiably be made, none the less I think the general results of the type of practices which have been enumerated here are that by retail price maintenance competition is eliminated and the cost structure of the distributive trades becomes rigid, that the costs are determined by the highest cost member of the trade so that any lowering of the cost of some individual traders is not passed on to the consumer.
Probably the worst result of the practices carried on by trade associations, apart from the fact that they make the level of prices higher than it should be and distributive costs so rigid, is the fact that the sanctions which they apply to their individual members do, in fact, amount to a policing of the industries by an association which is outside the control of the Government or any other body in the State.
For those reasons it does appear vitally necessary that legislation of some sort directed towards retail practices and retail price maintenance be put into operation at the earliest possible moment. It has not been estimated by the Minister or by anybody else so far as I know to what extent retail price maintenance exists in this country. I know it was estimated in 1939 in England that in respect of at least 30 per cent. of the consumer goods on which money was spent by the British public, there was in fact, some sort of retail price maintenance or another. That figure of 30 per cent. existed in 1939, but I would imagine that the figure is much higher in England at the present time. I would say it would be appreciably higher in this country.
I think there is little doubt that our economy is one which is to a very large degree subject to retail price maintenance on the one hand and restrictive practices which go hand in hand with the associations which maintain retail prices.
The big question which we have to decide is whether the Bill which the Minister now brings in is going to deal with the problem which everybody knows confronts the Government at the present time. Before dealing with this aspect I would like to point out one matter of detail which it might be more proper to bring up on the Committee Stage of this Bill. It is a matter upon which I would like an answer from the Minister, and it is the omission which may or may not be intended, or which may or may not be significant, in certain paragraphs in this Bill of the word "manufacturers".
We all know that retail price maintenance is not only carried on by distributors, but also by manufacturers, and that in this State, as in other States, the manufacturers, just as much as the wholesalers and retailers, are in the associations or "rings", as they are sometimes called, and have a part, sometimes a very important role, in maintaining prices. It does seem to me extraordinary that the word "manufacturer" is left out in Sections 3 and 6 and in one or two other places in the Bill, where the Bill refers to persons "engaged in the supply or distribution of any kind of goods".
I could visualise a manufacturer who may be aggrieved by an Order made under this Act applying to the courts for a declaration that such an Order would be ultra vires on the basis that the Act applies to persons who are engaged in the supply and distribution of goods. While I do not intend to give any decision on the matter I wish to point out that there is an ambiguity there and whether it is an omission or whether it is significant that the word “manufacturer” is not in the Bill, I should like to see it inserted in the Committee. If there is any reason for not inserting it, I should like to hear the Minister on it at this stage, because it does appear to me to be an omission which may very well give rise to real difficulty later on when Orders are made under the Bill.
The big problem which this House has to decide on is not whether we are against restrictive trade practices or whether such practices exist, because we are all against them in principle and we know that they exist in fact. What we have to decide on here is whether this Bill is going to deal effectively with these practices and my opinion is that it is not. The arguments have been put forward here already, but I feel that the experience of the Monopolies Commission set up under the British Act of 1948 can be a guide to us in this House as to the slow and cumbersome work which a commission such as this must, of necessity, perform. I have not seen the recent figures in regard to that commission, but I understand that, in over two years, it brought in only two reports and these dealing of necessity with only a very limited range of goods. We all know that the number of goods which are subject to retail price maintenance and to control by associations of one sort or another are very many indeed and if the commission reports on only two in two and a half years, I consider that such a commission is not worth setting up.
My first criticism of the Bill would be that it is setting up a commission which is going to work in a very slow and cumbersome fashion and which is not going to deal effectively with the very real problems which exist in the economy at present. My second criticism is the criticism made here already, that this Bill is setting up a commission which is purely a creature of the Minister for the time being, and it is quite clear that it would have been possible for the Minister to have set up a commission, as commissions have been set up by previous legislation passed through the House, which would be semi-independent, at any rate, outside the control of the Minister for the time being; but by this Bill we are setting up a commission which is under the direct control of the Minister, the members of which can be removed at will by the Minister and the inquiries which that commission can indulge in are to be directed and controlled by the Minister for the time being.
If this fair trading commission decides from its experience and the information it obtains that a given trade or association requires examination, its efforts can be vitiated before hand by the Minister of the day directing the extent the inquiry is to take, and a further example of the manner in which this commission as it is proposed will work is the fact that the Minister can appoint an individual to look into a particular trade or association. It is that one individual appointed by the Minister for the day who will be responsible for bringing in whatever sort of report the Minister for the day may require to be brought in, if, for any reason, he does not wish stringent action to be taken against any particular trade. The Minister had various precedents for setting up an independent or quasi-independent statutory body. If the principle of setting up a commission to deal with restrictive trade practices is accepted —and I do not accept it as a proper principle—the Minister should have set up a commission which would be independent of the Minister in power and one which would not, in fact, be his creature as the commission which it is proposed to set up will be.
One of the most serious aspects, however, of the commission which it has been proposed to establish is the extent of the powers which this Bill proposes to give. I believe that the State has the right and the duty to intervene in the affairs of associations which are set up to protect legitimate trading activities of their members. I believe that no section of the community can set itself apart from the State and complain if the Government for the time being inquires into the manner in which its affairs are being administered; but while the State has the right, the duty and the responsibility to inquire into trade associations and their affairs and the manner in which they are carried on, I feel that that right should not be used in a tyrannical fashion, and whereas there can be little doubt that trade associations to-day do work tyranny on persons or firms not in the trade and against whom they can apply sanctions, it is wrong merely to superimpose one tyranny on another, to try to do away with the tyranny of a trade association by setting up a new one in the form of this commission.
I am referring in particular to Clause 8 of the Schedule which, in my opinion, should go out completely and should not be permitted to remain in the Bill. Clause 6 of the Schedule gives ample power to the commission to obtain all the information and all the documents it requires, to obtain information from associations, either through individuals whom they may wish to subpoena before them or from the books or accounts of these associations or firms. Clause 8 goes beyond the powers and duties which this Legislature should give to the commission and, in my opinion, is an unjustifiable interference with rights which are going to be properly regulated, in any event, by Clause 6. If Clause 8 remains in the Bill, very great injustices, practices which could amount in certain circumstances to tyrannous action by an authorised person of this commission, may occur.
I read with some care the Minister's opening remarks when introducing the Bill. He laid down certain principles which he said he was asking the House to accept. It has been suggested by the Opposition that the proper way to deal with restrictive trade practices is to lay down certain principles, no matter how difficult it may be to frame them, and then leave it to an independent body or to the Attorney-General to find out if these principles are being broken and lay the matter before the courts.
Debate adjourned.