I was in the course of pointing out when the debate was interrupted that what will be regarded as restrictive trade practices under this Bill will be decided by the commission. That commission has yet to be set up and the Minister has not given us any details concerning it except that it is to consist of not more than four or less than two members. The House will agree with me that the work to be carried out by that commission is of vital importance to the commercial and industrial community and yet, as I say, we have had so far no details concerning the composition of that commission or what interests, if any interests as such, will be represented on it.
I notice also that the quorum of that commission shall be two. That does seem a rather small and perhaps intimate number of persons to decide matters of such importance as those with which that commission will undoubtedly deal. The commission will examine various trades and the conditions under which they work and make a report to the Minister. Under Section 8 of this Bill, the Minister, having considered that report, may make an Order and he may prohibit various arrangements; in fact there is a whole range of prohibitions which he can make. Under the same section, sub-section (1), paragraph (f), he may make such other provisions in regard to the supply and distribution of goods as he thinks fit. I do not think a Minister of this House has ever been given wider powers than that.
Under the last sub-section of the Bill, the Minister has to bring that Order to this House but I am nervous, and many other people are nervous, in this regard. I am not referring personally to the Minister in any way but there will be other Ministers sitting in that position after the present Minister and we may have a Government here which is hostile to certain trade interests in this country or, indeed, perhaps hostile to very many of them. It would be a very easy thing for such a Minister, followed by a subservient Party, to make an Order which might be entirely inimical to the interests of the commercial community and, therefore, to the interests of the whole country. That is one of the objections I see to this Bill.
When we turn to Section 13, which provides the penalties, we find that certain financial penalties are laid down. In one case, on summary conviction, a person is liable to a fine not exceeding £500, and on conviction on indictment, the fine can be up to £5,000. In commercial matters one could not object to fines. I suppose it is fair enough that, if a Bill passes through this House dealing with commercial matters, financial penalties should be invoked. Perhaps £5,000 is a rather large amount and is rather harsh treatment, but still an argument can be made out that a big company might laugh at a small fine.
However, when you come to the sub-section which says that a person shall be liable to not more than ten years' penal servitude, I think that is a most extraordinary provision to put into a Bill of this nature. I cannot think of any commercial misdemeanour which would entitle a person to ten years' penal servitude. Indeed, murder, and certainly manslaughter, might not be treated as harshly as that. The Minister has not given us any grounds for thinking that there are any practices at the present moment which would warrant such a very severe penalty. If there are such practices going on at the present moment which would warrant that, I think the Minister has ample powers to deal with such offenders under the various legal remedies which exist for the restraint of trade, or offences which would warrant such a severe penalty might even be dealt with under the Constitution.
In short, I do not think the Minister has shown any justification for such a harsh penalty as ten years' penal servitude. I would remind the Minister that in commercial or trade matters, it is possible for people, to whom the full extent of the crime is not perhaps apparent, unwittingly to break the law. It might be that some innocent person could be condemned to a very heavy sentence of penal servitude for doing something which, in effect, he did not know was contrary to the law. We should hear from the Minister as to what are the reasons for putting such a very heavy penal clause in this Bill. I would like the Minister, when replying, to give us the real reasons why he considers this Bill and the very heavy penalties under Section 13 necessary.
I would like to discuss at this stage certain aspects of the commercial life of this country. Trade and commerce are not carried on in as simple a fashion as many people imagine. There exists in this country, in common with every civilised country and to a greater extent in more highly industrialised countries, a complicated system of price structure. That price structure has been built up over generations. The various structures of trades and industries have been evolved for the benefit of the particular industries, not indeed for the benefit of the persons concerned in them. While it may appear, sometimes, that a certain individual or a certain section in a trade is doing very little for the place they occupy in the structure, I would assure the House that, on examination of that particular trade and its general set-up, it will be found that that particular individual or class is contributing something to that trade, and is therefore entitled to remuneration for services.
There seems to be an idea in the minds of many people that certain sections of industry operate like pirates or brigands and that certain persons in them get a rake-off. I would like to disabuse the minds of people in this House and outside of that idea. If they think that the general trade and industry of this country is carried on in such a fashion, I tell them that it is not. There are, of course, exceptions to every rule. Very probably there are cases that will have to be dealt with, but I am quite certain that they do not exist to anything like the extent that a lot of people imagine. In the business community, any section of trade that is battening on a particular industry or on trade in general gets very short shrift unless there are certain factors preventing the ordinary flow of business.
In the past 25 to 30 years we have been building up an industrial arm, and a great deal has been said in this House for and against the industrial policy which we have been pursuing. Personally, I believe that an industrial policy is vitally necessary to this country. I also believe that behind tariffs and so on, which are and which have been necessary for the building up of that industrial arm and that industrial life, you may get certain individuals acting not in the general interests of trade. At the present moment we have quotas in addition to, and sometimes instead of, the tariff system. Deputies have referred to the actions of individuals in connection with quotas. Undoubtedly, there are individuals preying on certain industries, but I do not believe that that happens to any large extent. The Minister, through his wideawake Department of Industry and Commerce, could very well deal with such individuals in special cases, and a Bill of this sort is not necessary to rid a trade of such persons.
Generally speaking, by and large, the persons engaged in industry in this country are in it because they are necessary to the particular trade and because they are giving a service and carrying out some special function which requires their specialised knowledge.
I want to rid people's minds of the idea that the industry of this country is a vast conspiracy ranging from the manufacturers to the small shopkeepers and that that vast conspiracy works to defraud the public. That is not the case. That is the greatest nonsense. It is time somebody pointed out that industry in this country does not carry on in that fashion.
The Minister referred, somewhat darkly I thought, to letters reaching the Department complaining about restrictive practices. I am sure a number of letters have come into the Department but I would imagine that a great number of them are from people looking for terms to which they are not entitled. Many people want to buy at the same rate as shopkeepers. One of the things which the commission, which it is proposed to set up under this Bill, will realise is that fixed prices in themselves are not necessarily a bad thing. There are many people who seem to think that that is so. I shall develop that argument later.
Deputy McGrath referred to a wireless set which was bought by a local authority hospital in County Cork and said that the same week a wireless set of the same make was also bought by a voluntary hospital in Cork. He said that the two sets cost £18 each. In the first case the local authority was quoted a price less 33? and the Deputy seemed to think that in order to be able to quote less 33? that wireless dealer must have had a very large profit and that, therefore, when a few days later the voluntary hospital was quoted £18 his profit must have been enormous.
I can assure the Deputy that when the dealer quoted the local authority less 33? for that wireless set his maximum profit was something in the nature of 5 per cent. The highest it could have been was 6½ per cent., and it quite likely was 2½ per cent., so that makes the transaction far from being one which was unfair. It makes it that actually the local authority hospital got a wireless set at a very cheap price. I would imagine—I do not know precisely—the reason the local authority hospital was quoted a very cheap price like that had something to do with the bulk buying of the Department of Local Government and that that particular dealer felt that he was dealing with a hospital which might buy many of his sets. Therefore, in fact, there is no proof of any overcharging at all; there is merely proof of one hospital getting a wireless set at a very cheap price and another hospital, not so fortunate, having to pay the ordinary retail price. That is the only conclusion that can be come to from that particular transaction.