Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Apr 1956

Vol. 45 No. 20

Restrictive Trade Practices (Confirmation of Order) Bill, 1955—Second Stage (Resumed) and Subsequent Stages.

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Debate resumed on the following amendment:—

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:—

Seanad Éireann declines to give a Second Reading to the Restrictive Trade Practices (Confirmation of Order) Bill, 1955, until a complete transcript of the evidence presented before the Fair Trade Commission is made available for the consideration of members of the Oireachtas in view of the fact that representatives of the radio trade who gave evidence before the commission have publicly stated that certain sections of the report on which the Restrictive Trade Practices (Radios) Order, 1955, is based are, in their entirety, or in part, contrary to the evidence submitted at the inquiry.—(Senator Douglas.)

Professor O'Brien

I do not wish to enter into the merits of this report about which I have not sufficient information. The few remarks I shall make will be devoted to the procedure in respect of the regulation of restrictive practices in this country. Everybody is agreed that restrictive practices should be regulated. When I say "everybody" I mean nearly everybody, because I know some people do not agree with the principle. However, nearly everybody is agreed that restrictive practices must be regulated by law, but the question arises what type of regulation is the most effective. It seems to me that this debate illustrates very lucidly some of the advantages and some of the difficulties of the legislation adopted in this country.

There are two main types of procedure in this matter—an administrative tribunal or a judicial tribunal. In this country, we have come down on the side, temporarily, at any rate, of an administrative tribunal reporting to the Minister. In England, on the other hand, a Bill is going through the House of Commons adopting the principle of a judicial tribunal. I think there is a great deal to be said on both sides, and I think this Bill gives us an opportunity of saying a few words generally on the matter, apart from the particular report on which it is based.

The arguments against the judicial hearing of applications of this kind are, in the first place, that it is bringing the judges into politics. The judges are being asked to decide economic and social issues which are outside their proper function. It is also said that judicial proceedings are long. There well may be appeals and there may be a great deal of delay and procrastination before a decision is come to. The President of the Board of Trade, in introducing the Restrictive Practices Bill in the House of Commons, said it was his opinion that the administrative type of procedure, which we have in this country, is more dilatory and creates more procrastination, that it involves a great deal of delay and a great deal of uncertainty, and that that is why the British Government have come down on the side of a judicial tribunal in these issues.

I think that the present debate is a very good example of some of the em barrassments caused by the Irish type of procedure. But, in saying this, I want to be perfectly clear, beyond all manner of doubt, that I am not in any way casting any aspersion of any kind on the members of the tribunal. In fact, I want to say that the discussion by the public and by the Legislature is greatly aided by their very valuable report. I do not propose to delay the House for more than a few minutes; but I want to pay tribute to the excellent manner in which the tribunal has discharged its very difficult and very onerous work and to the great value of its report in these discussions.

The difficulty that I see about the Irish system of procedure is that it becomes almost impossible to avoid having the issue put before the tribunal debated at least twice—once by the Dáil and once by the Seanad. That is why I agree on the whole with the attitude of the British Government on this matter, that a judicial inquiry is more rapid, more certain and takes the matter out of current political discussion more than our procedure does.

The Act of 1953 could have adopted two different lines of procedure, and it seems to me that there is a dilemma involved. The Act could have authorised the Fair Trade Tribunal to make a report to the Minister and make an Order embodying the findings of that report, without referring the matter to the Dáil or Seanad. That, to my mind, would have been very objectionable because it would have given to the Minister entirely undue administrative power, without parliamentary responsibility. Possibly I am old-fashioned and possibly my legal training has given me more than average respect for the rule of law and for the importance of subordinating all activities to the jurisdiction of the courts; but I must say, whether it is as a result of that training or not, or as a result of my experience for a few years as chairman of the Statutory Orders Committee in this House, I feel it is very much in the public interest that discretionary Orders by the Minister and by the Government should be reduced to the narrowest possible limits.

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid that issue does not arise under this Bill.

Professor O'Brien

I bow to the Cathaoirleach, but I am about to come to the other horn of the dilemma which involves the defects of parliamentary debate and, with great respect, I might ask you to allow me to proceed for just a few minutes. Then, if you still think I am out of order, I shall sit down; but I suggest that what I am about to say is directly relevant to the amendment before the House, because I am speaking specifically on the amendment, and it is to the amendment that I now propose to address myself.

The administrative Order by the Minister is one horn of the dilemma which I, as a constitutional lawyer, am inclined to regard with disfavour. The other horn is that the Minister's Order should be the subject of a Bill. That is the procedure adopted here. Hence, we have this Bill before us; hence we have these debates; hence we have these amendments; and hence, I would say, these delays and uncertainties in dealing with the question of restrictive trade practices.

I do not wish to delay the House, especially as you, Sir, seem to think that there is some question as to whether or not I am strictly in order, but I ask you to bear with me for a few more minutes on this amendment. The objection to the second course, as I see it, is that it is quite impossible for you, Sir, or for the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil, or for anybody else to prevent the issues before the Fair Trade Commission being fully discussed on their merits a second time in the Seanad and in the Dáil. That is what we were engaged on yesterday and are now engaged on to-day. I would suggest that discussions of that kind are dilatory and hold up the operation of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act; they really involve, in fact, hearing the issues a second time.

I want now to go back to the amendment of Senator Douglas. As I said, if the constitutional attitude is taken that reports of this tribunal should, before being put into operation, be the subject of legislation, I cannot see how it is possible to avoid having all the issues re-discussed fully in the Dáil and Seanad, and all the issues, which can be quietly, impartially and in a detached manner discussed by the tribunal, being made the subject of political debate, with the Press present, and all the affairs of the particular trade being aired in the newspapers for public consumption. In other words, it seems to me that the Irish procedure involves us in this dilemma: you either give too much power to the Executive without parliamentary responsibility, or you give too much publicity to the issue by full-dress debates in the Dáil and Seanad on the matters already discussed by the tribunal.

I wish now to approach directly the subject of the amendment and I would ask you to believe me that I am not, in my opinion, being irrelevant, although I bow to the Chair. If a discussion of this kind takes place, it will naturally be based on the report of the tribunal, and it seems to me it is a very valuable function of the tribunal to provide the Dáil and Seanad with the raw material for a formal discussion on subjects to which they have been directing their attention. But if, in addition to the report which is before us as a public document, circulated to every member of the Dáil and Seanad, a full transcript of all the evidence and of all the proceedings which took place before the commission is also to be made available to us, it seems to me that in that case our procedure here will amount to a re-hearing of an impartial inquiry which, if I may say so, was not the intention of the framers of the Act.

There are certain difficulties about this amendment. The first is that the Fair Trade Commission is not bound to keep a transcript of its proceedings. Secondly, it is not bound to provide anybody with a copy of the transcript, if it does keep it. Thirdly, part of the proceedings are heard in private and, if a transcript of that part of the proceedings is kept, it would be a breach of privacy and secrecy on the part of the commission for that part of the transcript to be made available to the Dáil and Seanad. Lastly, if the transcript is in two parts, one part of which is available and the other part of which is not available, the Dáil and Seanad would be asked to re-hear all the issues before the commission on part of the evidence only and not on the whole of the evidence. Therefore, it seems to me that if this amendment is accepted and if, in addition to the report of the tribunal itself, all the evidence that has been tendered in public and in private, and all the remarks of counsel and of witnesses and of everybody present at the tribunal were brought before the Dáil and Seanad, really what we would be asked to do—the 60 members of this House and the 147 members of the Dáil—would be, without the expert assistance of counsel, to re-hear all the issues involved and debate these issues entirely on their merits.

Now, as I said, in the Irish procedure, we cannot avoid having a debate on the merits of the issue. The matter is embodied in a Bill which is brought before both the Houses. The purpose of that is to enable both Houses to debate the issues afresh. I think that is the lesser evil as against the alternative of a ministerial Order without any Bill in the Legislature at all. I think it is the lesser evil of the two. But if the Dáil and Seanad are to discuss not merely what they read in the report, but also all the evidence and all the remarks of counsel available to the tribunal, then it seems to me we are constituting ourselves into something like a court of appeal on a matter in which we have not really got the expert knowledge requisite to come to a decision. That is why, addressing myself purely to the amendment, I feel that to provide the Dáil and Seanad with a transcript of evidence would be, as I said, involving us in functions which it is not our duty to perform.

In deference to your ruling, I do not propose to say what I originally meant to say—I am afraid to do so—as to what I consider to be the superior merits of the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill now before the British House of Commons. I can only state that, in my opinion, it is a better way of tackling this problem. May I say, however, that if a judicial decision is come to by the Fair Trade Commission, or by a judicial tribunal, no other body, be it a House of Parliament or, as is the case in England, the Court of Appeal, is entitled to set aside the findings of the tribunal merely because it disagrees with its conclusions. Even if all the evidence were available here and if we had the full transcript, assuming it was available and assuming it could be put at our disposal without a breach of confidence and assuming that, having read it, we all unanimously came to the conclusion that the Fair Trade Commission's opinion was against the weight of evidence—speaking now subject to correction by some of the eminent lawyers in this House—I would suggest that would not be a reason, of itself, for refusing to implement the findings of the tribunal.

The general rule in regard to appeal on questions of weight of evidence is that, unless the finding of the lower tribunal is so flagrantly against the weight of evidence that no reasonable man could find the way the tribunal did, the higher court is not entitled to set the original finding aside: and I suggest that, even if that evidence were available here and even if we unanimously agreed that the findings of the Fair Trade Commission seemed to us, at any rate, to be against the weight of evidence, we would still be transcending our responsibilities, our functions and our powers, if we refused to implement the report simply because we were of that opinion.

In deference to your ruling, I shall not extend the matter any further. I would like to discuss the Restrictive Practices Bill at present in the House of Commons, but it might be slightly out of order. I hope that what I have said was in order. It was an attempt to suggest that the provision of the transcript of evidence is a matter not within the province of the Fair Trade Commission Act and that it is undesirable and impracticable.

Mr. Cogan

On a point of order, Sir, I regret that I was not here when the House sat. I moved the Adjournment last night and I should like to draw your attention to the fact that the bell is not in operation in our part of the House. That is my excuse for being late, but if you think I am in order to resume, I will do so.

An Cathaoirleach

Apart from whether the bell is in operation or not, members are aware that the House meets at three o'clock. The Senator was not in his seat at that time and I had no alternative but to call on another member. However, if the House has no objection to my calling on Senator Cogan, I am prepared to do so.

Professor Hayes

We have no objection.

Mr. Cogan

When I moved the Adjournment last night, I was endeavouring to indicate that there is some difference between the approach that might be expected from this House to a Bill of this kind and that which might be expected from Dáil Éireann. In connection with this Bill, we are somewhat in a different position from that of the other House, inasmuch as Senator Douglas has presented to this House a case which was not presented to the Dáil. Therefore, I think we are entitled to view this Bill from a somewhat different angle from the one it was viewed from in the other House.

It has been represented by Senator Douglas that the recommendations of the Fair Trade Commission were not in accordance with the evidence submitted before the commission and, whether a transcript of that evidence is presented to the House or not, I think we have available to us the Press reports of that evidence. At any rate, we have had made available to us a good deal of the evidence that was submitted to that tribunal and it was represented to us in this House last night by Senator Douglas that we are in a position to form an independent judgment on this matter. Senator O'Brien suggested that it was not desirable that any case heard by the Fair Trade Commission should be reviewed by this House. There may be something in regard to legal procedure in that, but, as an ordinary layman, I would feel that it is desirable that this House should examine any case that is presented to us and it is certainly desirable that a decision taken by the Fair Trade Commission, which is of a fairly drastic nature, should be reviewed by some higher body, if possible.

I think there was a very definite difference between the attitude taken here by the Minister yesterday and in the Dáil in connection with this Order and the views expressed by Deputy Lemass when introducing this Restrictive Practices Bill in Dáil Éireann. Deputy Lemass intimated that he would not be bound automatically to accept any recommendation put forward by the Fair Trade Commission, nor would he be bound to reject automatically any such recommendation but that he would reserve absolute freedom of action in the matter. Yesterday, the Minister intimated that he was not going to review in any way the decision of the Fair Trade Commission, but, because they had made these recommendations, he would accept them automatically and put them before the House. I think there is a definite divergence of viewpoint between these two Ministers.

I know that, in dealing with this matter, the Dáil was in a somewhat different position from this House, inasmuch as a complete rejection of the Bill would be something of a fairly final nature. Our position is that if we reject a Bill, it means a delay in its operation, and that is the limit of our constitutional right. The question does arise as to whether it might or might not be desirable to delay the operation of this measure, in view of its fairly drastic nature.

As I indicated last night, if we had no doubt whatever in our minds that the recommendations of the Fair Trade Commission are fair and based on the evidence put before them, then we should accept them without question, but, if there is any doubt in our minds, we should be inclined to defer the passing of this Bill.

I am not quite sure that a strong case has been made for having the transcript of the evidence put before this House, because, as pointed out by Senator O'Brien, there is a good deal of evidence which would not appear in that transcript, and there might be some evidence of a confidential nature which it might not be desirable to debate publicly. If we have any doubt in our minds as to the wisdom of the recommendations, we should not hesitate to give the benefit of the doubt to those who are affected.

It must be remembered that in this matter we are not dealing, in the main, with the big people. We are dealing with the smaller fry. Those of us who live near the country towns or villages know that the radio dealers are, in the main, small traders. They are people who are self-employed and who carry on a very modest business selling radios and repairing sets that are brought into them for repair.

Mr. Hickey

Are they not the small fry of the big combines?

Mr. Cogan

I would not be in a position to know that, but I do know that they sell radio sets, and, if there is a reasonable profit on the sale of those sets, the number of sets they would sell in the year is so small that they are entitled to a reasonable measure of profit.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Norton)

Will the Senator concede that they should fix the margin of profit themselves, or does he think that somebody else should fix it for them?

Mr. Cogan

That is the point I was coming to. We have to consider in matters of this kind whether it is right or proper for small people engaged in distribution and production to combine together for the protection of their interests, or whether they should act individually. Those of us who live on the land, that is the farmers of the country, are frequently admonished by our betters, if you like, the people who hold themselves out as the intellectuals, that we should come together and form collective societies, and other organisations of that nature to fix the prices at which we will sell our products. Frequently farmers have taken drastic action to prevent their neighbours from under-selling farm produce, or for selling below the price fixed by our organisation.

I think for that reason that it is illogical to say that the small traders in our country towns should not be able to protect themselves. I would like to point out that these people sell only a limited number of sets in the year, but they have to service a considerable number of sets for a modest charge. We all know that every little cottage and homestead has a radio set, and quite frequently those sets go out of order for one reason or another. The owners are not prepared to pay high charges to have them repaired, and in that way it is not possible for radio dealers to earn very substantial sums in repair work. Yet, this is work that has to be done, and they do it. I think their income from their business generally is a very modest one. That is my personal knowledge of a substantial number of the people engaged in the trade in provincial areas.

I further would feel that in this matter the first drastic action that has been taken under this Restrictive Trade Practices Act has not been taken against the bigger people in the world of industry and commerce. It has been taken rather against the smaller fry, and for that reason I feel it might be desirable to defer action as far as these people are concerned, for a while at least, during the period when perhaps some of the bigger people are dealt with. We all know that, in the ordinary course, when a new type of an offence has been created, the first person to appear before the court on that new offence is rarely as severely dealt with as those who are arraigned subsequently. Even on that ground, there may be some point in favour of caution in regard to action under the Act.

I was rather impressed by the figures given by Senator Douglas in regard to the average income of people engaged in the radio trade. He stated that the gross income of these people would on an average be about £400 per year, and, if you have to keep premises and pay all expenses out of a gross income of £400 a year, that could not be said to be an exceptionally high average income.

There is another consideration which impinges on this measure and that is that there is a very large section of the people who are left outside the scope of the Restrictive Trades Practices Act. They are the trade unions and the skilled workers who work on time rate for salary or wages. These people are not brought within the scope of this legislation at all and they can form any union they like and be as restrictive as they like in the operation of that union and in the exclusion of entry into that occupation. That is an anomaly of which this House must be aware in the matter of taking action such as the drastic action being taken under this Bill.

Finally, I should like to say that I am not convinced that this small tribunal of three persons can be so absolutely impartial that there should not be provision for some other tribunal to act over their heads. This is a commission of three persons and I assume that one of the members would be representative of——

An Cathaoirleach

I do not want the Senator to pursue that line. It is not dealt with in the Bill. I gave a certain amount of latitude to Senator O'Brien, but I do not want the matter pursued.

Mr. Cogan

The only point I want to make is that the prejudice of the majority of that commission would be brought out against persons engaged in production and distribution. That is inevitable. There may be a minority of one in favour of the producer or distributor, but the majority will always be prejudiced against him. It does not appear from the report of the tribunal whether or not the decisions of this commission are majority decisions or whether, when the majority decides, the entire commission concurs. That is perhaps something which the Minister might explain.

I wish to say that I was convinced about the motion to delay this Bill and Senator Dr. Sheehy Skeffington's contribution did not strengthen the case for the Bill. I have on a few occasions found myself in agreement with Senator Dr. Sheehy Skeffington but, when that happens, I always examine my conscience.

Mr. Burke

I have only one point to make on the amendment of this Bill which has been more than adequately discussed and covered. Senator Sheehy Skeffington when speaking yesterday said that the wireless dealers should not be the persons who would examine entrants to the trade. I must confess I was rather surprised because I am rather sure that Senator Sheehy Skeffington would suggest and insist that university lecturers and professors should be the people who would select entrants to the professorships and lectureships of universities. In the Civil Service, you always find that the Appointments Commission is overloaded with officials when the selections for appointments are made. I think it is inconsistent to suggest that the people who run business or industry and have to meet the practical effects of everyday competition would not be the sort of people who would be competent to select entrants to the trade. I do not wish to comment further on this amendment. I propose to give the Minister an opportunity of concluding this long debate on this section.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

Ba mhaith liom beagán a rá ar an mBille seo. Tá fhios agam go maith dá mbeadh díospóireacht leathan againn ar an mBille go mbeimís as Ordú. Sin an cheist is mó atá le reiteach againn annso indiu ná an bhfuil iontaobh againn as an gCoimisiún atá i gceist againn. Tá aigne oscailte agamsa mar gheall ar an rud so, agus sé mo thuairim go bhfuil a ndualgas á chomhlíonadh go maith ag an gCoimisiún.

I have not very much to say on this Bill or on the amendment. My approach to the matter, I must say, is made with a completely open mind. I think the salient issue is whether Seanad Éireann or Dáil Éireann is competent to review the work of this body known as the Fair Trade Commission. I imagine, as one individual, anyhow, that if that were the case, then it would have to be regarded as a vote of no confidence in the commission. I do not know to what extent we would concede that the constitution of this tribunal is similar in its rules and procedure to an ordinary court of justice, and the question is, would it be right or proper or competent for the Seanad or Dáil Éireann to review a decision of an ordinary court of justice?

There is one difference, however, between this tribunal and an ordinary court of justice, inasmuch as there is no machinery for appeal from a decision of the Fair Trade Commission, and as regards the ordinary courts of the land, with the exception of the Supreme Court, there is always machinery for an appeal. The only appeal, of course, in this case is to the Minister himself, and from what I can gather, the Minister is in a position to exercise his discretion as regards the implementation of the findings of the commission. But it has been suggested to me—not here—that the Minister is bound to accept the findings of the Fair Trade Commission in their entirety or not at all. I would like to hear from the Minister if that is or could be the case.

Mr. Norton

I said in my opening speech that it was not the case. It looks as if I might not have said it.

Mr. Kissane

I am just asking. I did not hear that.

Mr. Norton

Senator Cogan also said that I must accept it automatically. I declared in my opening speech that I did not have to do that.

Mr. Kissane

I did not mention the word "automatically".

Mr. Norton

Still, the idea was there.

Mr. Kissane

What I said was the acceptance of the findings in their entirety, which is a different thing altogether.

Mr. Norton

Senators do not seem to have read the Act they are discussing, I am afraid.

An Cathaoirleach

They are not discussing the principal Act. It is important for Senators to remember that.

Mr. Kissane

I do not want to discuss the principal Act, a Chathaoirleach. I merely want to have that matter fully clarified. As I said, I was under the impression myself, and have always been under the impression since the parent Act was put through the Oireachtas, that the Minister had discretion as to the implementation of the findings of the tribunal. The overall position, to my mind, in any case, is whether we approve of the work that has been done by the Fair Trade Commission in their examination of the cases that have been put before them.

The Fair Trade Commission has rendered a service to the community as a whole, and its very existence could be regarded as a deterrent to what are described as restrictive trade practices. As I said in my opening remarks, if it were to arise here that we would think ourselves justified in having a retrial of any investigation that has taken place by the commission, that would be tantamount to a vote of no confidence in that body, and, if that were the case, then it would be our duty to put an end to that body and find some other machinery for dealing with this problem. I do not know whether the members of this House or the other House would be in favour of doing that.

Mr. Cox

It seems to me that Senator O'Brien has really summed up the position very fully. On this amendment by Senator Douglas, we are really not discussing the Bill itself. We are discussing whether we should adjourn our proceedings until the transcript of the evidence can be examined. I think the view is perfectly correct that it would be quite impossible for us to examine the entire evidence given before the tribunal, and that the only thing we can go upon is the report of the tribunal, together with the Order that the Minister has made.

Senator Douglas presented his case extremely ably and very cogently. I myself am by no means entirely in favour of the Restrictive Practices Act, or the consequences that may follow upon it, but it does seem to me that at the moment the only matter before us is to consider whether we should decide not to give a Second Reading, until we have been able to see the full transcript. It would seem to me that if we decided that in this case, we would probably have to decide it in the case of every other Order, and we would practically be substituting ourselves for the Fair Trade Commission and, to some extent, for the Minister.

It would seem to me that the point which we may have to consider on the Bill itself is whether, on the report, we approve of the Bill, but I would certainly agree that it would not be a feasible proposition for us to make ourselves into a court of appeal and to inquire into the evidence. If such a committee were to be appointed as is suggested, it would be in the difficulty that it would have to act purely on the transcript, if it could be obtained, without seeing the witnesses. In other words, it would be a tribunal that would be even more difficult to evaluate than would the findings of the Fair Trade Commission itself. For that reason, I think we should reject the amendment, although I do think that Senator Douglas has made a very strong case on the merits. However, I do not think that the Seanad can possibly approach the matter by way of re-examination of the full evidence.

Dr. McHugh

I should like to speak briefly against the amendment of Senator Douglas. During the course of his speech, I may have done him an injustice in assuming that he was reading his speech; but I must say, in extenuation, that it was extremely difficult to distinguish where Senator Douglas left off and where Deputy McGilligan— whose speech in defence of the radio dealers he quoted—began, and where Deputy McGilligan ended and the report of the Radio Dealers' Association began. Although his whole speech was something of a tour de force it was, nevertheless—and this is my main ground of objection to it—an attempt to present one side of a case judged upon by a competent and legally constituted commission.

A point that struck me about Senator Douglas's speech was that he mentioned that he would have been willing to appear before and give certain figures to the Fair Trade Commission. As far as I understand the process by which witnesses can appear before this commission, it would have been quite open to him to present himself, with his facts and figures before the commission; and, having failed to adopt that course of action, I think it was rather reprehensible that he should plead one side of the case in the Seanad. After all, the Seanad, as Senator Kissane pointed out, cannot be called upon to rehearse all the evidence of such inquiries. If the radio dealers' case is to be presented by Senator Douglas, to-morrow or the next day, we may have some Senator advancing only the case of the motor-car assemblers and the day after, if there is a commission to establish uniform phonetic spelling for some of our particular dialects or a commission for atomic research, you may have some Senator briefed to present just one side for or against this particular line. I think it is bad practice when the Seanad is used to name witnesses and to impugn their evidence. Unless I misunderstand it, I think at least some of these witnesses are civil servants——

An Cathaoirleach

I hope the Senator is not suggesting that Senator Douglas's amendment was not in order?

Dr. McHugh

No; I am merely saying I would like to express myself as disapproving of the procedure which he adopted in order to present his case by naming certain witnesses who were not in a position to defend themselves. I think Senator ffrench O'Carroll made the same point.

Another point made by Senator Douglas was that apparently the public and the consumers at large have no complaints about the prices charged for radios or about trade practices; and he advances in support of that argument that the people did not turn up and that there was not a large number of complaints from the consuming public brought before the commission. I think the people on the whole have a good deal of respect for the integrity of the personnel of the Fair Trade Commission, and I think it would be a good idea if Senator Douglas had the same. He spoke of "lies" presented by the commission and he spoke of the "distortion and twisting" of evidence. All this seems to me to be in very bad taste, because this was a properly constituted commission, the aims of which were to bring down prices or, at any rate, to see that the consuming public were not charged excessive prices through the operation of restrictive trade practices. I think that the public as a whole are behind the commission and that this House should not be used for what is really an attack on the commission itself. I hope in that respect that Senator Douglas is a diversionist from his Party line, because I think it would create an extraordinarily bad impression in the country if any considerable number of Senators were to vote in favour of this amendment. It would be, in effect, an indictment of the Fair Trade Commission. Therefore, I oppose it.

Mr. Douglas

With the permission of the House——

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Douglas, on a point of order?

Mr. Douglas

On a point of withdrawal. In view of the statement which the Minister made at the beginning of his speech that, under the 1953 Act, he has no power whatever to obtain a transcript of the evidence given, I would ask permission to withdraw my amendment, because there would be very little point in pressing the Minister to do something which he cannot in fact implement. I would suggest, with the permission of the House, that I now withdraw my amendment, and, on Committee Stage, I might be able to suggest an alternative which might be more acceptable.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Norton

I think a good deal of misunderstanding has been disclosed by the approach of some Senators to the Bill and to the parent Act under which this action was initiated. Before I proceed to deal with some of the arguments, may I clear up some of these misunderstandings? When I was introducing this Bill yesterday, I said:—

"There was of course no question of my accepting these recommendations automatically. I examined the report in detail and I considered each recommendation very carefully. I could have rejected the commission's recommendations in whole or in part but my examination of the recommendations convinced me that the commission were fully justified in their recommendations and that I should make an Order on the lines suggested by the commission."

Mr. Kissane

That is a complete answer.

Mr. Norton

Yes. Senator Douglas built a goodly portion of his case around the statement, which he says was made by my predecessor, that it was possible to amend this Bill. I think the Senator, when he saw that portion of my predecessor's statement, was apparently so pleased that he did not think it necessary to apply any check on the accuracy of it, or to take any precautions to see if in fact it had not been corrected later. I want to deal with that portion of the Senator's statement because he appeared to give an impression that the procedure, which I was asking the Seanad to adopt here, is something very different from that contemplated by my predecessor.

For the Senator's information, perhaps he would let me quote what my predecessor said on the Committee Stage of the Bill. I can only conclude that my predecessor did not fully appreciate the significance of the question which was put to him by Senator Douglas's late father, but certainly, before the Committee Stage of the Bill passed through the House, and, while the late Senator Douglas was present in the House, my predecessor left no doubt in the mind of the Senator that the procedure which I am adopting in this matter would have been the same procedure as he would have adopted in similar circumstances, because I think there is no other practicable alternative available to it.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce, speaking at column 821 of the Seanad Report, dated 18th March, said:—

"These Orders should stand as a whole and the Houses of the Oireachtas should have the right to accept them or reject them but not to amend them. If we give the Houses of the Oireachtas power to amend there is no point in having all this other procedure. Why have an investigation by a commission if the Houses of the Oireachtas, or a Joint Committee of both Houses, are to go over that investigation again dealing with every minute detail of an Order designed to eradicate unsatisfactory conditions in particular trades?"

In other words, he clearly did not contemplate the ordinary Bill procedure, whereunder the Bill is framed by the Department, taken to the Dáil and Seanad and Deputies and Senators amend the Bill in any way they like. He contemplated, as I contemplated, a situation in which all the facts are ascertained by the commission and the Houses of the Oireachtas can accept or reject, as they like. My predecessor went on to add—and in some respects this is not really a statement, but a prophecy:—

"I have no illusions about the power which vested interests can exercise in matters of this kind. Senators who have seen the lobbies below crowded with representatives of different trade associations, when some matter affecting the interests of those associations is under discussion, will know precisely what I mean and I am quite certain that when any measure which is likely to break up some profitable trade ring is brought forward, every resort will be adopted either to get the Minister to modify the recommendations of the commission in his Order or to get the Oireachtas to reject the Minister's Order, if that appears practicable at all."

On 12th March, 1953, at column 690 of the Official Report, the then Minister for Industry and Commerce said:—

"The Bill provides that, when the Minister has made an Order, a confirming Act is to be submitted to the Dáil and Seanad. That Act, I contemplate, will be similar to those passed from time to time imposing customs duty under the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act. It is not intended, nor did I contemplate, that the Orders themselves should be subject to amendment by the Dáil or Seanad."

He goes on to say at column 691:—

"I think it would be foolish to provide for a detailed re-examination of the Orders by the Houses of the Oireachtas, much less to provide for joint committees to examine them."

I think Senator Douglas will now accept that, however my predecessor fell into an admission that the Bill was capable of amendment on the Second Stage, this series of quotations which I have given will make it clear that my predecessor corrected the position when the Bill was under discussion on the Committee and Report Stages.

Mr. Douglas

May I say I did not intend to convey that I thought that the present Minister was departing from his predecessor's plan of action? I wanted to convey the fact that I wished he had adopted that suggestion which had been made on the Second Reading.

Mr. Norton

The Senator succeeded in kindling some enthusiasm in the mind of Senator Sheehy Skeffington for some elucidation of that point and I hope the elucidation I have attempted will answer Senator Sheehy Skeffington's point, as well as constituting a reply to Senator Douglas.

I must say I could not understand Senator Douglas's approach to this matter at all. He started off with a lyrical tribute to the chairman of the commission. He said that gentleman was most impartial, upright and correct in every way and extremely courteous. He went on to say that he had no complaint to find with the commission, that it was fair and impartial and conducted its proceedings in a way that satisfied the Senator. But, before the odour of that bouquet had faded away, the Senator was engaged in throwing knives as fast as he could, for one and three-quarter hours, into every part of the Fair Trade Commission's anatomy. Of course, the Senator will realise, when he reads the report of his speech, that it was one long indictment of the viciousness and wickedness of the Fair Trade Commission. But, having misrepresented things and distorted things and pulled things out of their context, the Senator asked the House to accept a report completely at variance with the evidence which was tendered to the commission. The case the Senator asked the House to accept was that these three responsible people—I did not appoint them and I therefore have not to make a case for them—so neglected their duty that they distorted the evidence tendered and gave a report completely at variance with the evidence submitted to them. I think Senator Douglas even hoped that, if he could see the transcript, he would be able to demonstrate that in such a way that Senators would not even question the accuracy of what he said.

I ask you, do you believe that three responsible people would be guilty of a distortion of evidence and of the presentation to the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Government of a report deliberately biassed, so far as the evidence was concerned? I think Senator Douglas overpainted his picture. To use another metaphor, I think he overplayed his hand so far as the accusations he made against the commission are concerned. We were, of course, asked to accept as evidence by the Senator something which was not evidence at all. The Senator quoted a number of statements as if they were evidence, or as if they constituted evidence. But these were the statements of the advocate hired by the Wireless Dealers' Association and I do not think anybody would go so far as to say that statements made by an advocate in making the best case he can for his clients must necessarily represent the fount of exactitude in the matter of the presentation of evidence. The advocate was doing his best, I have no doubt. I have no doubt he was very skilful and made use of every possible scrap of material that he had on behalf of his clients. But he was not there for any other purpose except to defend the interests of his clients.

Apparently, the people who engaged him were pretty vigilant because they did all they could to get the commission to come to a point of view and, the commission having come to a certain point of view, they have since been pretty active in trying to get people to refuse to accept the point of view at which the commission arrived, having considered all the evidence. I do not think we should make the mistake of imagining that the statements made by an advocate before the Fair Trade Commission are evidence, as Senator Douglas sought to suggest they are. They are not evidence. They were the ex parte statements of an advocate briefed for the purpose of making the best case he could on behalf of the Wireless Dealers' Association.

Senator Douglas said that the wireless dealers were the first of the trade associations to be brought before the public eye. I do not know whether the Senator still believes that, because it is, of course, not true. The inquiry into building materials, the report on which has already been circulated to the members of both Houses of the Oireachtas, shows that the public sittings of that inquiry commenced prior to the public sittings in connection with the radio trade; so that, as far as the public is concerned, the examination into building materials preceded the public examination of the operations of the radio trade.

Senator Douglas made some reference suggesting that the commission distorted the evidence in their reference to tariff protection. He made the point that the large-scale protection now enjoyed by the manufacturers was not introduced until 1946. Frankly, I could not follow the relevance of that comment by the Senator. In point of fact, the commission were at pains in appendix D to bring out the fact that the 75 per cent. full and 50 per cent. preferential rate was not introduced until 1946. There was no effort made to conceal that at all. It is stated there quite clearly in appendix D. I notice that it is only to persons entering the trade after 1946 that the new regulations were applied by the federation. That has a significance that might bear much further examination.

The Senator refers to what he says was a mistake in the introductory part of the report. He refers to a statement that all the witnesses were examined on oath and that the Association of Civil Liberties was represented by a solicitor. I refer to these matters to show how much the Senator overplayed his hand and overused his material. He went on to say that no witness from the Association of Civil Liberties was examined on oath and that there was no witness from the association before the commission. It is made perfectly clear and beyond all doubt in the list of witnesses furnished by the commission in appendix B. Nobody said that a witness from that association was examined at all, so what the point of the Senator's argument was I certainly do not know.

The Senator made a great deal of play on the fact that no member of the public had given evidence. I hardly think that is a fair comment. The general complaints in regard to the radio trade were from persons who had not been able to set up in business in that trade. He condemned the members of the public who did give evidence and whose evidence was described in chapter 2 as a complaint that they could not get into the business. Is it wrong or immoral that a person should endeavour to get into the radio trade in order to earn a livelihood? Is it to be said by these people, on whose behalf Senator Douglas has spoken, that these other people have no right to go there and complain that they were kept out of the trade?

Mr. Douglas

I said that if these were the type of people who sought to get into the trade, I did not think they should be allowed to.

Mr. Norton

The Senator treated these people pretty roughly in his comments and he even tried to identify them by giving their correct names, whereas the commission only gave an alphabetical appellation. I do not think that the fact that they tried to get into the radio trade makes them less reputable citizens. They were entitled to go there and to avail of the opportunity of telling the commission what their business was and what they wanted to do. We here are not called upon to pass judgment on their characters and their morality. They went there to throw light on a complaint which the commission was definitely set up to deal with.

I should like to correct a misunderstanding on the part of Senator Sheehy Skeffington. He said that I had stated at the opening of my speech that the commission had access to documents in the custody of the various Government Departments. I said no such thing. What I said was that the commission, as they have stated in their report, did have access to minute books, files and records of trade associations. These were as much part of the evidence as the evidence taken at the various oral sittings. A perusal of these minute books was as much a part of the material on which the commission based its report as was the evidence taken orally. If the House cares to examine the report of the commission on the building materials trade, they will see how valuable was some of the information contained in the minute books of some of the trade associations. They will see that some of the members of the building trade themselves went on record in these minute books as saying that profits were pitched too high and should be brought down. They said they were getting away with too much. No transcript of evidence will give you that statement, but if the Senators will read the report on the building materials inquiry, they will find some very interesting information and some further information of the same kind which I hope to supply to the House when we come to discuss the matter.

I think it is asking us to believe too much when we are asked to believe that trade associations are concerned primarily with the public interest. They are not. They were set up to defend the interests of those in the association and defending the interests of those in the association is not always compatible with looking after the public interest. If we are going to have an inquiry into the radio trade, who is going to carry out that inquiry? If you agree with what Senator Douglas has said, you would let the radio trade themselves carry out the examination of the practices in their own trade. Does anybody think that such an inquiry would be anything more than an exhibition of public whitewashing? Whoever would carry out that inquiry, it could not be the radio dealers. Somebody else had got to do it and the body appointed to do it was the Fair Trade Commission which was set up by a Bill passed with the approval of this House and with the approval of the Dáil as well.

Let us look at what is sought to be done in this case. I do not know whose interests Senator Cogan was looking after to-day, but it seemed to me that he was looking after the interests of the radio dealers. I want to be fair to the radio dealers, but I am more concerned with being fair to the public, and it is in the public interests that the inquiry was held into this whole matter. Certainly it was in the interests of the small traders in the business that there should be some regulation of the kind now contemplated. Look at what happens. Say that a dealer in the radio trade buys ten wireless sets for each of which he pays £10. He pays the cheque for £100 to the man who produced those radios and then these sets become the property of the small radio man in the city or in the country. He owns them. His personal ownership of these radios is not in dispute.

However, a body known as the Wireless Dealers' Association enters into an agreement with the man who made those sets and who sold them, in which they say to the man who now owns the ten sets that he cannot sell a single one of these sets, unless he makes a profit of 50 per cent. on them. Who wants to justify that and in what way can such a principle be justified? Suppose the dealer's own brother comes along to him and says that he wants to buy one of these sets. The radio dealer, although he paid £10 for the set, may be willing to give it to his brother for £10. However, if he does that, he is breaking a contract to which the Wireless Dealers' Association says he is a party and insists that the manufacturer is a party. He will get no more radio sets if he sells one of these ten sets at 1 per cent. profit less than the 50 per cent. which they require. I am quite sure there is no public endorsement in this country for the fixing of such high minimum profits on a highly protected article. I do not think that the public would endorse such action. I would like to see the public consulted, and to see whether they would endorse a stand such as that.

The radio trade here is protected in a way that very few other industries are protected. There is a protective tariff of 75 per cent. on radio sets, with a preference rate of 50 per cent. on British radios. You cannot buy a radio in any part of the world you like and import it here. If you buy it in Britain, you have to pay 50 per cent. duty, and if you buy it outside Britain, you have to pay 75 per cent.

We have given this protection because of our desire to build up a radio trade here and we have built up quite a good radio trade in the country. Having done that for the radio trade, are we to permit them to say that they will insist on every person who gets into the trade, because of the tariff wall which has been built up for their protection, charging a minimum price which will give them a profit of 50 per cent. on the article? I do not believe that the public will stand for that and I do not believe they will warmly applaud Senators who would encourage the continuance of such an arrangement.

Apparently Senator Douglas sees nothing wrong with that and considers that it is quite normal trade that, when high tariff walls are built up to protect an industry, the people engaged in that industry should escape entirely any investigation by the Oireachtas, or by any Act of the Oireachtas. That may be all right, but does it give any consideration to what the public might think and what they are thinking? I do not share Senator Douglas's views. I think the public have to be protected in matters of this kind and this Bill seeks to protect them. After all, resale price maintenance is a development of recent years and has entered into a whole lot of industry, but there are quite a number of industries carrying on without it. The whole textile industry is an example of that. When there is a defence of the practice of resale price maintenance, that defence takes place not in the interests of the public, but in the interests of the dealers concerned. When there is a conflict in this matter, the public have to be protected, and consequently I think we have to come down on the side of the public interest, and that is what this Bill is doing. That is why I ask this House to give a Second Reading to this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to take the next stage?

Mr. Norton

It seems to me that that does not arise, because this Bill is in the nature of an Order and, in my opinion, there is no amendment possible at this stage. That was the view taken in the Dáil. The principle of the Bill has been agreed and, while I am not trying to tie the hands of the Seanad, I think we could deal with the rest of the Bill now.

Mr. Douglas

Would it be possible on this occasion for the Committee Stage to be put back until next week, so that I might have, as the Minister suggested, an opportunity of reading my own speech?

Mr. Norton

I withdraw that punishment I put on the Senator.

Mr. Kissane

I understand that Senator Douglas has withdrawn his amendment.

An Cathaoirleach

That is right.

Mr. Kissane

If that be the case, it seems to me that it does not arise any more and we can deal with the Bill now. There is no need for any preliminary amending stage of this Bill. The Second Stage has now passed and, in the circumstances, the principle of the Bill has been agreed.

Mr. Douglas

We will now take it that the House will form itself into a Committee to deal with the provisions of the Bill.

Professor Hayes

The Committee Stage should be taken now because the Minister, I think, is correct in saying that this Bill is really in the form of an Order or a resolution. We are approving of an Order which cannot be amended. I do not know whether Senator Douglas wants more time to discuss that.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Douglas will have an opportunity in the Final Stage of the Bill of making any comments.

Mr. Douglas

If the House is taking the Committee Stage now, can I make a suggestion which might be acceptable to the Seanad as an alternative? Under Standing Orders 73 (2), I do not know whether I would be in order in moving the following motion:—

That the Restrictive Trade Practices (Confirmation of Order) Bill, 1955, be referred to a Select Committee of the House so that they can examine the report of the Fair Trade Commission referred to in the Order to be confirmed by the Bill with a view to ascertaining whether any of the sections of the report are in their entirety, or in part, contrary to the evidence, documentary or otherwise, submitted at the inquiry; or are a misrepresentation of the facts covered by such evidence.

The Special Committee shall be empowered to send for persons, papers and records that they may consider to be of assistance to them in their inquiry, including any transcript of the proceedings of the Fair Trade Commission as may be available through the commission or otherwise, and such documentary evidence and sworn statements as were delivered to the Fair Trade Commission during their inquiry and were omitted from, or abbreviated in, the appendices to the report.

The Select Committee shall consist of nine Senators, of whom four shall form a quorum, and they shall report back to the Seanad within three months from this date.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator would definitely not be in order in moving that motion. The Seanad has agreed to the principle and the motion is a change in the procedure which has already been accepted.

Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.

Bill passed through Committee, reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Douglas

Some statements were made by several Senators and the Minister, which, I believe, arose from a misinterpretation of the Bill and Order. The Minister said that one of the things which the Bill proposed to do was to protect the public and I do not think a single member of this House, least of all myself, will quarrel with that opinion; but I do feel very strongly that in this Order which we are confirming now certain sections do not, in fact, confer that protection on the public which was the intention of the 1953 Act and which I feel was the intention of the Minister.

One of the things that have been overlooked in this House, which I did not mention on the Second Reading, or deal with very fully, is the fact that a wireless set or a television set is a very technical instrument which requires careful servicing and handling. At the present time, the general consuming public has the benefit of a form of warranty issued by the manufacturers, and the manufacturers can only ensure that the public will have the benefit of that warranty, if they can see that one of those sets reaches the public through some person or persons who have the skill and ability to see that it is in full working order before it reaches the public and can, if necessary, attend at the owner's house or repair it on the premises. When we pass this Bill, that warranty will no longer be available to the public.

It is well to remember that, in England, there have been a number of cases, fortunately not very many, where unskilled persons, in attempting to repair television sets, have turned them into lethal weapons, and in at least two cases children have lost their lives through touching those sets improperly repaired. When we pass this Bill this afternoon we are making it possible for any unskilled person to sell and set out to repair not only wireless sets, which, of course, are less dangerous, but television sets, which are lethal weapons. I cannot believe that it is in the interests of the public to leave them in that position.

The Minister also referred to the fact that the wireless trade had received protection. I did not, unfortunately, take down his exact words, but he endeavoured to suggest that the trade had received protection from the very beginning and ought, therefore, to give additional service to the public. In my own speech yesterday, I endeavoured to make it perfectly clear. I believe that the dealers had been giving good service to the public, but I cannot agree with the Minister that originally the wireless trade asked for protection. I have here a sworn statement which I did not read out, but I hoped the Minister might make available to the House. Apparently it is not possible to do so. The statement is from the largest radio manufacturer in this country who, I think, commenced business, according to the sworn statement, in 1936. As far as I remember, without referring to the report, protection, or so-called protection, came in 1926. In other words, it was imposed as a revenue duty and was not imposed to protect an Irish industry. The Minister has made great play of the fact that these high duties were imposed to protect the industry, but we have no actual evidence that the manufacturers asked for this protection. Certainly, as I say, there were no manufacturers then, when the protection was first imposed.

One thing that worries me most of all about this Order—and I may say that there are, in fact, only two sections of the Order with which I have any quarrel—is that we are restricting the right of the individual to decide how best the products of his labours can be supplied to the public. I am satisfied that as long as there can be no collusion between manufacturers of wireless sets, there is ample competition in this country to allow those individual manufacturers to decide how best the products of their labours should reach the public. It is on that point that I quarrel mostly with the Minister. As regards any collusion inside or outside the Wireless Dealers' Association to decide on the prices the manufacturers should charge the public, I would entirely agree with the Minister that we should take every possible step to prevent any such collusion. But I consider that if we are going to produce, say, a Douglas wireless set, I put great emphasis on doing something better than other manufacturers and I ought to be entitled to take every step possible to see that that article reaches the final consumer in the condition in which I have produced it and sent it from my factory. The present Order will prevent the public from having that.

I should like, in conclusion, to refer to one point made by Senator Sheehy Skeffington on the Second Reading. He objected very strongly to wireless dealers or retailers deciding who should take part in that trade. I might say that I could equally object to students of French being examined by professors of French when they present themselves. That, I think, would be completely wrong. I accept the principle which has been enshrined in our educational methods over the years that persons should be examined by those people most qualified to decide whether they are capable of carrying out repair work, professional services, or whatever it may be. It would be entirely wrong to accept Senator Sheehy Skeffington's suggestion that in future people should not be examined by people qualified in their own trade or profession.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

On a point of explanation, my point was that they should not be examined by people who have a vested interest in keeping them out of the trade.

Mr. Douglas

That might equally apply to those dentists, accountants, solicitors and so on. We have always accepted the principle that they should examine people who are intent on getting into their occupation. However, as I said, there are only those two sections of the Order which I can really find fault with. The first is the restriction of the individual's right to decide how he can best dispose of the products of his labours; secondly, that the public will no longer have any protection whatsoever as to the wireless set or television set which is going to reach them. There can be no warranty given by a manufacturer who has no say as to how the set is going to be disposed of, once it reaches the retailer's hands. That is a point which I think the Minister has overlooked.

It has always been accepted in the past that there is that guarantee, but it would be quite impossible, as I say, for a manufacturer to give that warranty, other than to say that the set must be returned to the factory for repair. Let us see how that will affect a person living, shall we say, in Clare Island or the more distant parts of the country. The set will have to go back and forth from the factory to the consumer, and it would add very considerably to the cost both of set and maintenance, as far as the individual is concerned. It will have the effect that you must fix the ex-factory price, which means that people in the more remote parts will, in consequence, no matter what prices are charged by the retailer, have to bear a greater price than a person in Dublin or close to the factory.

I wish it were possible, as I suggested on Second Reading, to amend the Order. I believe that many members of this House would feel much happier if, for instance, Section 14, which the Minister did not deal with, could have been removed from the Order. I also think that we would have felt a great deal happier if at least one section of the Restrictive Trade Practices Order on the motor trade could have been included in both the radio Order and the building Order, and that is the one which apparently allows a person to advertise the retail price of a new vehicle. I think that also should have been allowed in the present Order.

I am sorry for detaining the House so long on this Bill both last night and this afternoon, but I do feel that a certain amount of principle is involved. I agree with the Minister, as I have said already, that the public is entitled to be protected against what I call horizontal price maintenance. I believe, under our Constitution, the individual is entitled to decide for himself how best to dispose of the products of his own labours.

Mr. Norton

I just want to call Senator Douglas's attention to Article 13 of the Order, which, I think, has been overlooked by the Senator and by the whole radio trade, who apparently cannot be induced to see the value of the Order. I will read it out for the benefit of the House:—

"Subject to the provisions of this Order, a supplier may apply to the acceptance of orders for goods to which this Order applies such terms and conditions, including conditions as to the size or frequency of such orders or as to the functions of a retailer or the services to be rendered to the public, as are reasonable in the interests of efficiency and economy in production and distribution or are necessary in the legitimate interests of the supplier's business, provided such terms and conditions are applied in an equitable manner to all persons seeking supplies of such goods."

So there is no reason at all why these catastrophic things which Senator Douglas has foreshadowed should take place in the radio trade.

Article 13 gives the manufacturers powers to be reasonable in the conditions which they attach to orders for their goods. These conditions can be prescribed by the radio manufacturers. Once prescribed, they must apply to all persons in the trade and the decision as to what is reasonable or otherwise will be determined ultimately by the Fair Trade Commission—not by the Minister, not by anybody else in the trade, but by the Fair Trade Commission—and the radio manufacturers will get adequate opportunity of making whatever case they want to make in defence of the conditions attached to orders for their goods.

Now, without adequately appreciating the beneficial provisions of Article 13, or seeing any virtues whatever in it, the radio trade has engaged in a mass attack on this Order. I am going to make a prophecy now. If someone intelligently applies Article 13 to the radio trade, a whole lot of the things conjured up here as ogres to frighten people here will simply disappear. If in fact they ever make their appearance here at all, they will be ruled out by intelligent application of Article 13 of this Order.

Question put and agreed to