asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state the total cost to the State of the holding of public sittings, High Court proceedings, and the appeal to the Supreme Court arising out of the inquiry of the Fair Trade Commission, into the sale and distribution of patent medicines, infant foods, and medicinal and toilet preparations whose recommendations he has rejected.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Sale and Distribution of Medicinal and Toilet Preparations.
It is not practicable to segregate the cost of the holding of the public sittings in connection with this inquiry from the cost of other functions carried out by the Fair Trade Commission.
As regards the High Court proceedings taken against the commission by the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland and the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court, it will be recalled that, in both cases, judgment with costs was awarded to the commission. These costs, when taxed, will be recoverable by the commission from the prosecutors.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether, in view of the fact that, in not giving an explanation within the statutory period of three months for his refusal to accept the recommendations of the Fair Trade Commission inquiry into the sale and distribution of patent medicines, infant food, and medicinal and toilet preparations, he did not comply with the provisions of subsection (5) of Section 9 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, he will state what steps he now proposes to take in the matter.
On 3rd July last, I tabled a statement in both Houses of the Oireachtas indicating the reasons for my decision not to make an Order on the lines recommended by the Fair Trade Commission in their report of the inquiry held into the supply and distribution of medical and toilet preparations and infant foods. I explained in that statement the circumstances in which I did not find it possible to comply with the statutory requirement that the statement should be laid before each House of the Oireachtas within three months of the receipt of the report from the commission. I have nothing to add to what I then said on the subject.
This inquiry, which was a most elaborate and costly inquiry, submitted its report in December, 1956. The failure of the Minister and his predecessor to accept the recommendations or publish a statement as to why they would not accept them entailed a breach of the law. Does the Minister not accept that he has broken the law in not either accepting the recommendations or making a statement as to why he did not accept them? He had the report from December until July in his Department and he waited until July, when the House had just risen, to make his statement, and he then refused to accept the recommendations of the commission.
The Deputy is making a speech, of course, by means of a question.
Is it not a fact that the recommendations of the commission, seven in number, represented an attempt to deal with the rings in this trade? Will the Minister not take any action——
The Deputy is not asking a question.
——to deal in an alternative way with the malpractices that exist in this trade? Is he going to allow these restrictive practices to continue?
As a member of the profession concerned, I want to ask if it is in order for the Deputy to talk about malpractices in a very honourable profession?
Will the Minister answer my question? Does he intend to take any action to end the restrictive practices in this trade?
In so far as the Deputy's supplementary is relevant to the question on the Order Paper, as far as I am concerned — my predecessor will have to answer for himself—I became Minister on the 20th March. I found that I was expected not merely to study the report but to come to some conclusion and announce my conclusion within a week. I declined to do so.
The Minister did it in regard to the subsidies quickly enough.
It would be preposterous to expect any Minister to reach a decision—
Will the Minister say——
If the Deputy does not want a reply, he will not get it.
The receiving of the report was one thing, the publication of the report was another thing, and as far as I was concerned the statutory period for deciding had not expired at the time the previous Government left office. There was still time after the last general election for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to take a decision if the document had, in the meantime, been available in a printed form for consideration by the Government.
That is true. I had one week in which to consider it and I had a lot of other things to do in that week.
That is clearly so much nonsense and an evasion of the Minister's responsibility to deal with what this elaborate and costly inquiry showed——
The Deputy is not asking a question.
——were malpractices in this trade.
That is a statement, not a question.
Will the Minister take no steps to deal with this problem?
Question No. 25.
With your permission, Sir, I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
I shall communicate with the Deputy in the course of the afternoon.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state what steps he proposes to take in regard to the declared objective of the Irish Drug Association of regulating from time to time and maintaining minimum retail prices to be charged for patent medicines, baby foods, proprietary articles, drugs and medicines, and the compounding of prescriptions, and for such other articles as are sold by members, which practice, in the opinion of the Fair Trade Commission, should be prohibited.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether, in view of Fair Trade Commission's findings in regard to the sale and distribution of patent medicines, baby foods, and proprietary preparations that the collective action being taken by wholesalers for the enforcement of resale price maintenance rings was likely to lead to an unreasonable restriction on the supply of goods, and could lead to an injustice to particular traders, and should be prohibited, he will take the necessary steps to safeguard the welfare and interests of parents and of infants who are one section of the public seriously affected by these price rings and agreements.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce what steps he proposes to take to insist on the discontinuance by chemists of the coding practice in relation to prescriptions which, in the opinion of the Fair Trade Commission, promotes uniformity of price, may induce a chemist to charge a higher price than he might otherwise charge and should be prohibited.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether, in view of the fact established by the Fair Trade Commission that resale prices of practically all proprietary medicines, infant foods and toilet preparations are fixed or suggested by the individual manufacturer, he will take the necessary steps to establish the free competition in prices said to be indispensable to the effective operation of the private enterprise economic system of trading.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether, in view of the fact that infant baby foods, because of a price-fixing agreement, may not be sold at less than a gross profit of 50 per cent. he will take steps to ensure that free competition in prices will be allowed to operate in respect of this particularly necessary commodity.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether, in view of the Fair Trade Commission findings that persons, who are unwilling to operate a price-fixing ring in the distribution and retailing of patent medicines, infant foods, and medicinal and toilet preparations, are, in effect, denied access to supplies of these commodities for sale to the public, he will state what steps he proposes to take to end this unjust practice.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 together.
On 3rd July last, I tabled a statement in both Houses of the Oireachtas indicating the reasons for my decision not to make an Order on the lines recommended by the Fair Trade Commission in their report of the inquiry held into the supply and distribution of medical and toilet preparations and infant foods. I said in that statement that, having studied the commission's report, I was of opinion that an Order on the lines suggested by the commission would not entail any marked alteration in the manner in which the trade is at present conducted, and that I did not, therefore, propose to make any Order. I emphasised, however, that this decision on my part was not to be taken as signifying approval of any practice, the prohibition of which was recommended by the commission or as in any way limiting the commission's statutory power to keep the position in the trade under review and to make fair trading rules or hold another public inquiry in relation to the supply and distribution of the goods concerned if, in the opinion of the commission, efforts to intensify restrictions or other circumstances at any time so warranted. I have nothing to add to this statement.