asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the progress made in relation to the examination of the activity known as pyramid selling.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Pyramid Selling.
19.
The examiner of restrictive practices carried out an investigation into pyramid selling and his report is at present under examination by the Restrictive Practices Commission. The commission will, in due course, furnish me with their observations on the report and any recommendations they have to make as to what action should be taken.
As the Minister is aware, I have been pursuing this matter in the House for the past six months by way of parliamentary question and during the course of debates. I have received the same reply on these occasions. The insidious practice of pyramid selling continues unabated, but once more the Minister is putting the matter on the long finger——
The Chair is anxious to help the Deputy but he must ask a specific question.
Can the Minister state when this mean practice will be brought to an end? Further, can he state when he expects to receive the report to which he referred?
Can the Minister state how many complaints have been received by his Department in respect of pyramid selling since the matter was first raised in the House? While awaiting the report of yet another commission, can any positive action be taken? Will we have the situation that the people responsible for this pyramid selling will gain a fortune and then skedaddle out of the country so that when the report is finally received it is too late to take action?
The Deputy should not make statements of this kind.
Quite a number of people have been defrauded.
A large group of people have been mulcted.
I find a certain amount of amusement in the mock indignation of Deputy Andrews because I inherited a cumbersome arrangement with regard to restrictive practices which I am endeavouring to simplify. I set that mechanism in motion on 8th June, 1973. The mechanism, of which Deputy Andrews is probably not aware but should be, is that the matter is referred to the examiner of restrictive practices. He reported back to me on 17th September and the mechanism is such that his report, under the arrangements of the previous Government, goes to the Commission on Restrictive Practices, where it is now. With the mechanism I inherited, I initiated procedures on 8th June to end this. Similar efforts, as the Deputy will be aware, encountered severe legal difficulties in Britain, where the same problem exists. This problem cannot be eliminated with a stroke of the pen. However, I am pushing forward those procedures as rapidly as possible and I will act as soon as I get a clear recommendation on them.
Will the Minister not agree he would not have initiated those procedures if he had not been pushed by me in the first instance.
I do not agree. The Deputy was not the person who first pushed this matter. Deputy FitzGerald initiated it.
I would also point out to the Minister——
I would ask Deputies to avoid making statements. We must make some progress at Question Time.
It is difficult not to make statements if we are to clarify matters. My indignation was anything but mock; my indignation has been consistent in relation to this foul practice.
The Deputy's indignation is as bogus as the mechanism that was set up originally.
Can the Minister state if special legislation will be needed?
I cannot answer that question at the moment. As has been the experience in the United Kingdom, where the problem surfaced earlier, there will be considerable technical difficulties in eliminating the problem. I do not know if there will be need for legislation.