Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 16 Dec 1980

Vol. 325 No. 7

Supplementary Estimates, 1980. - Restrictive Practices (Confirmation of Order) (No. 2) Bill, 1980: Second and Subsequent Stages.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The object of this Bill is to confirm the Restrictive Practices (Motor Spirit) (No. 2) Order, 1980, which I made on 11 December 1980 under the Restrictive Practices Act, 1972.

This order extends for a further two months the currency of a statutory ban on the operation of new company owned motor spirit stations by oil companies, created by the Restrictive Practices (Motor Spirit) Order, 1972. That order, as amended, is due to expire on 18 January 1981.

The 1972 order was made following an inquiry by the then Fair Trade Commission, requested by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in 1970, into the growth of the number of retail outlets directly operated by the petrol companies. In their report of the inquiry the commission argued that the growth of the control by the oil companies over the retail market needed to be halted for a time in the public interest as they felt that this development would lead to dominance over the retail market by the oil companies and increase the risk of such restrictive practices as price fixing and market sharing. The 1972 order halted this development for a trial period of three years. It was reviewed by the commission in 1975 and, on their recommendation, it was extended for another three years until the summer of 1978.

During that review the commission also received representations on matters relevant to the orders which their terms of reference did not allow them to consider. The commission had suggested, accordingly, that when they next reviewed the ban they should also review the other aspects of the orders relating to the motor spirit trade. I decided, therefore, to ask the commission to hold an inquiry into the operation of the orders as a whole, into any matters germane to the operations of those orders and also into the conditions which obtain in regard to the agreements under which stations which are company owned but not company run are operated. This latter aspect was included because I was anxious that concerns expressed by, and on behalf of, persons who were operating company stations without the security afforded by employee or tenant status should be explored thoroughly. Pending the receipt of the commission's report, I extended, by way of orders in 1978, 1979 and 1980, the ban for a further two and a half years to 18 January 1981.

I received the commission's report some months ago. The report has been examined and decisions have been taken on its recommendations. I had hoped to be able to have an order made implementing those of its recommendations which I accept and to have had a confirming Bill before the House before the end of this session. However, the order I propose to make is a complex one requiring careful drafting to ensure that it reflects accurately the numerous recommendations made.

Deputies will recall that when I spoke on this matter in the House in June of this year I expressed the hope that I would be able to introduce permanent legislation relating to the supply and distribution of motor spirit. Towards this end, I also propose, in the order to be made, on foot of the commission's report, to consolidate all relevant legislation. It is now clear that it will not be possible to have this lengthy order finalised in time to introduce confirming legislation during the present session. I have accordingly extended the currency of the statutory ban on the operation of new company owned stations for a further two months to 18 March 1981.

As regards the commission's report, I hope to publish this very early in the new year.

The Restrictive Practices Act, 1972, provides that orders of this kind shall not have effect unless they are confirmed by an Act of the Oireachtas. The Bill now before the House is the confirming Bill which is necessary to give the force of law to the order. The order, however, may not be amended but must be accepted or rejected as it stands. This is an uncontroversial measure and I have no hesitation in recommending it to the House.

I understand that there is agreement of the House——

I find myself in the position where I must say yes or no.

I understand that there is agreement of the House to take 20 minutes out of the next hour and a half's business to finish this. Is that correct?

As long as we get back on schedule.

We are back on schedule. We are to take ten minutes out of the Agriculture Estimate and ten minutes out of the agricultural regulations. That is agreed.

The matter referred to by the Minister concerns regulations under the Restrictive Practices Commission's Report. When discussing this last June the Minister referred to certain areas and activities of petrol companies and he expressed concern. At that time I referred to the position of persons who were operating company stations and I made the point that in many cases these people had spent the best part of their lives in these jobs and their livelihood depended solely on the sale of petrol or oil. In recent years because of the bullying tactics — to put it bluntly — of some companies because they wanted to get out of this position, in some cases they used the flimsiest excuses to find fault with the tenants of the stations and tried to eject them. These people had in many cases spent years in the service of the company but they seemed to have established no fixity of tenure; they had no legal rights. To me the law of natural justice would be expected to come to their aid but in many instances this did not happen. I hope that, when the Minister has decided to review the recommendations and select those he wishes to implement, this particular one will attract his attention and that he will lay down some definitive ground rules about this problem which has caused great hardship to many people in the service of oil companies. It is major problem with a human dimension. I hope the Minister will direct his attention to this aspect of the report.

Obviously I must agree with the extension for a two-month period to 18 March of the present state of things, the ban, to give the Minister time to get down to the nuts and bolts of this recommendation. He said, however, that he received the commission's report some months ago and because of that I am disappointed that he is not in a position now to bring in the order he mentioned in regard to the report's recommendations and the implementation thereof. In June last I asked the Minister if some type of moratorium would apply in the case of people over whose heads a threat was pending — an eviction threat in some cases. I think he said he was unable at that time to give that guarantee and I would like to know what the position is now until 18 March or such time as he finds it possible to introduce legislation to correct some of the anomalies and inadequacies which now exist in regard to certain regulations governing the sale of petrol. Would the Minister clarify that now?

I should also like to know if, in framing the regulations which he intends to bring before the House in the form of a confirmation order, he has consulted or intends in the next few months to consult with the parties involved in this area to get their points of view and see what might be suitable for them. I look forward to the legislation which the Minister has in mind. He said it has been delayed because of its complex nature and I hope we shall see something substantial that will correct the anomalies that have existed in this area.

Deputy O'Toole inquired about the position of certain operators of stations who were in some difficulty with the companies concerned. I understand that the majority of the operators who had these difficulties have concluded agreements with the employers in question. Some cases have not been settled yet; I think there are court proceedings in a number of them. It would not be proper for me to divulge the contents of the recommendations in the report.

Other problems mentioned by the Deputy were covered in the inquiry and in the subsequent report. I have made decisions in regard to these recommendations — such of them as I accept — and a preliminary draft of the order has been received in the Department but it is very long and very complex. It was only received in the past week and it was quite undesirable in view of the complexity of it to rush it as it appeared that some parts of it needed re-drafting to express more clearly the decisions reached. At the time of publication of the report in January I shall publish the new order and will introduce the necessary Bill immediately after the Christmas Recess so that it will be enacted before 18 March. I would envisage the new order taking effect from that date.

Despite the complexity which the Minister has mentioned and the length of the recommendations, does he think that the extension now sought and obtained is adequate considering that he will only have a month — it may be expected — after the return of the Dáil in which to introduce legislation in the Houses?

Assuming the Dáil sits at the end of January, which I gather is proposed, I will have roughly seven weeks and that is ample time.

Did I detect a note of hesitation in the Minister's voice when he said the Dáil would sit at the end of January?

No. As far as I know the date has been fixed for the end of January.

Question put and agreed to.
Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, and passed.
Top
Share