Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 13 Nov 1952

Vol. 134 No. 11

Restrictive Trade Practices Bill, 1952—Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. J.A. Costello

When the debate was adjourned last night, I was dealing with Section 3 and analysing the provisions of that and the following section. I pointed out that the commission, in doing the task which it is proposed to impose on them by Section 3, were given no guide or directing principle; that, in my view, the provisions of Section 3 were utterly useless; and that the section ought to be dropped from the Bill. The section proposes that the commission should, on their own initiative or at the request of an association representing persons engaged in the supply and distribution of any kinds of goods, prepare and publish fair trading conditions. It is only the commission, on their own initiative or at the request of an association of traders, that can formulate these fair trading conditions.

Where is the public interest safeguarded in that provision? We used to learn, as students of equity, that the original principles of equity as they were being built up varied with the chancellor's foot. The trading conditions which are to be prepared and formulated by the commission under Section 3 will vary with the Minister's foot because these people who are members of the commission, as I intend to point out in a few moments, are entirely political personages, creatures of the Executive, and it is the opinion of these people that is the only guide to what are fair trading conditions.

I wonder would it be relevant to inquire whether it would be possible for such a commission to formulate trading rules, rules of practice, which would provide for the situation in which a wealthy trader bought up the entire stock of a small industry at current market prices and then proceeded to sell well below the market price and close up that industry, or the situation in which a similar wealthy man buys a line of goods manufactured by a particular industry at the current market prices and sells them at less than cost in order to put that particular line of business out of business? These are things that have happened. Where in this Bill is a situation of that kind dealt with either by the opinion of political nominees or an Order of the Minister under the subsequent sections? I see no reason whatever for Section 3.

If this commission on its own initiative proceeds to form opinions, I have no doubt that its opinions will be actuated and motivated by the political views of the Minister who appointed them and that will emerge when an examination is made, as I hope to make, of the method of appointment of this commission. Their opinions will not be their own because they are not, and will not be, independent persons. They will be under the thumb of the Minister and of the Department. I have no faith in any such system or in an opinion formulated on that basis. If the commission even endeavour to formulate fair trading rules on any sort of proper principles, they will be merely models which will be pigeonholed and no association of traders or manufacturers will take the slightest notice of them.

If they are formulated at the request of a trade association, these fair trading conditions will undoubtedly be formulated, if they can secure it, in a way which will suit the interests of the persons in that association and when these so-called fair trading rules are formulated, if it does not suit the big people, the big business firms or the people in that association, they will take not the slightest notice of them but they will see that the little people comply with these rules. I can see no justification whatever for Section 3. The commission has no principle to guide and no rules to direct it. We have not even got a suggestion such as there is in the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, as to the type of evil that is to be eradicated.

I should like to pass from the consideration of Section 3 to a consideration of the type of commission to be set up, because whatever value—and I can see no value whatever in the section—it might have, if the members of this commission were independent personages, it cannot possibly have the slightest value when the method of appointment and method of control is analysed, investigated and laid bare. The fair trading commission is appointed under the rules contained in the Schedule, and the first rule provides that the permanent members of the commission shall consist of a chairman and not less than two or more than four other members. They shall be appointed by the Minister. If it would not be something in the nature of an abuse of the proceedings of the House, I would put down on Committee Stage an amendment directing that inverted commas be placed in front of and after the word "permanent". It is a mere mockery to call the members of this commission permanent because, a few passages further on, in Rule 4, there is a provision that the Minister may remove a member from office. He appoints a member and calls him permanent, in inverted commas, because he may remove him at any time.

Further than that there is an even worse provision than those I have referred to, because it appears that, whenever the Minister thinks a permanent member is unable to discharge his duties he may appoint a temporary member, but even if he does not think a temporary member is necessary, he may appoint temporary members for the purposes of a particular inquiry. I submit that those provisions condemn this commission as entirely political, and I say it was deliberately designed to be political and that it vitiates the entire purpose of the Bill. What sort of confidence can the public, the small business people, have in a commission the members of which are appointed by a politician, controlled by a politician and removable by a politician?

This commission is entirely too political, and if we could dissociate ourselves from our own political controversies in this House, if we could consider this objectively and apart altogether from the political differences which divide, and strongly divide, the political Parties here, and look at this in principle, I say that there is not a Deputy here unless he has the bureaucratic mind of the present Minister for Finance or the present Minister for Industry and Commerce who would not condemn the system in this Bill. The idea and the type of commission is obviously borrowed from the British Act of 1948 to which I have referred but in that Act there is some attempt at giving the members of the commission established under the Act some degree of independence, some separation from politics and from direction by the Government or by a political Minister because one of the provisions of that Act is that the members are appointed for a term of years and no member is eligible for reappointment. Here it is solemnly proposed to set up a commission appointed by whatever Minister is in power at the time and called, if you please, a permanent commission but any member of that commission can be removed a minute after his appointment if he does not do what the Minister tells him. That is the type of commission that is here invoked in connection with the property and the liberties of the business community here.

So far as I am concerned, I will do everything I possibly can to remove these clauses from this Bill. The very fact that they appear in the Bill confirms me in the suspicion I have that this Bill is not intended to do anything drastic and is so designed that it cannot do anything effective. Look at the possibilities for corruption that are involved in this measure. In order to judge this matter objectively, let us forget that the present Government is in power, so that the remarks I have to make may not be directed either to Fianna Fáil or Fianna Fáil Ministers. I do not care what ministry is in power. I do not care to what Party or Parties the Government belongs, the particular method of appointment and the particular method of removing the members of this commission, together with the powers that are given to the commission and the provisions that are contained in certain sections of the Bill, such as Section 6, sub-section (2), that the commission shall comply with the direction of the Minister as to the nature and scope of inquiry made at his request demonstrate that this commission is designed solely as a political instrument to carry out a particular policy of a particular ministry at a particular time, and for that very reason it is open to tremendous corruption or to the appearance of corruption, which is as bad.

It may be that the particular Party from which that ministry would be formed would be impervious to the fact that certain vested interests and certain big business people give large subscriptions towards Party funds. The public would know that that was being done and, however incorruptible the ministry might be, the very fact that the system was such as to lead people to believe that would make it inevitable for business people to take a chance and give a large subscription to the particular Party from which the Government would be formed, in the hope that that subscription would percolate into someone's mind and so affect Government policy or the Minister's policy as to bring about the result that they at least might have some influence on the question of how far this commission, this political body, would interfere or take care not to interfere in a particular business or industry.

I submit that this commission vitiates the entire purpose of the Bill. It is too political. It is too bureaucratic. If the House gives this Bill to the Government we will have an extension of bureaucracy. The machinery devised by this Bill, if it is put into operation, will involve a big staff of civil servants. Worst of all, it will involve the employment of a number of unproductive workers and the creeping in of that bureaucratic machinery into the liberties and the livelihoods and the business of private citizens. These considerations would, in my opinion, be more than sufficient to condemn the machinery that is suggested here.

Leaving aside these very powerful considerations, even if this machinery is set up in the very unwarranted manner in which it is proposed to establish it, the machine will work very slowly indeed. It will take decades before any inroad will be made towards eradicating the restrictive practices about which we complain. The machinery provides for an inquiry either on the initiative of the commission itself or at the request of the Minister. I think it is entirely illusory to put in that phrase—the commission on its own initiative. The commission will not act on its own initiative because it will be a political body and it will take good care not to show any sign of independence or initiative since it will be subject to political control at every second and every hour of its existence. It will act upon the direction of the Minister. If the Minister directs, it will hold an inquiry. Even then the Minister can direct the scope of the inquiry and say: "Just go that far. Here is a restrictive practice. I am being bothered about it. The public-are making a nuisance of themselves and I must do something. Inquire into it, but take care you go only thus far and no farther." That is the first step in all these elaborate stages that must be gone through before anything emerges. That will take time. Having made the inquiry, the commission must then report. We all know how long it takes a commission to report. Having reported, the Minister and his departmental officials and the officials of the other Departments must examine into the report and see how their interests are affected. That will take time.

The report, having been made and considered, must then be laid for some time before each House of the Oireachtas. That also takes time. Having done all that, an Order may be made by the Minister if the Minister thinks fit and only if the Minister thinks fit. That Order, having been made, the Minister, before bringing it to the House can, under Section 8, sub-section (2) revoke or amend the Order that he has already made before the House gets any opportunity of discussing it. But if he is not pleased to exercise those wide powers, the Order then comes before the House in the form of proposals for legislation. We all know how long it takes to get even ordinary non-controversial Bills through this House. I should say that every Order of this kind which it is sought to validate by Act of Parliament would be highly controversial in character. Votes will be taken in the passing of these Orders and in the various stages before the Bill emerges as law. What precisely is meant by Section 8 (3)? Is it intended that the Order should be just scheduled in an Act, with the proviso in the body of the statute that the Order shall take effect in accordance with the terms of Section 8 (3)? It appears to me from the terms of Section 8 (3) that this House will have no power to amend one single comma in that Order because, according to the machinery provided here, the Order must be confirmed by an Act of the Oireachtas and then shall take effect in accordance with its terms. It is, therefore, possible to conceive that an Order is made by a Minister with retrospective effect so that it will be in operation for a long time before the law gives it sanction through the machinery provided by the Houses of the Oireachtas. I do not know whether or not that is intended but at least the matter should be clarified.

I think I have said enough to demonstrate that, at best, the machinery provided by this Bill will operate slowly and ineffectually. It will also operate, unfortunately, in a manner unnecessarily irritating to those sections of the business community who carry on their business in a proper way, having regard not merely to their own interests but to the interests of the customers in general. At best it will operate slowly and it will take decades before any inroad is made on restrictive practices. At its very worst, I fear that the machinery provided may procure sanction for practices which would become fossilised in the economic structure of our State. Here you have a body set up to make fair trading practices, to make inquiries on the result of which Ministers will act. The result of that may be that this commission is acting without even the guiding principle to see that free competition and free enterprise are maintained. It has no guiding principle at all but it will go on empirically without any guiding light. The effect of that would undoubtedly be that, having no fundamental principle to guide each inquiry or each formulation of so-called fair trading rules, practices which at one time may have been justifiable will, through changing circumstances in the course of the passage of time, become restrictive in themselves and highly objectionable. The very commission which we propose to set up to eradicate restrictive practices from our business would then give restrictive sanctions renewed life.

If, as I suggested at the outset, some effort were made to clarify the principles on which we shall work, to define or at least to describe the restrictive practices at which to aim our ammunition, then those principles which we would lay down would guide and direct the commission and give new life to each of their efforts made in changing circumstances and to meet different conditions.

I object to the powers conferred on the Minister by this Bill not merely for the cogent reasons which I have already submitted to this House but also because the Minister will be put into the possession of powers which will enable him to threaten the personal liberty and the private property of many innocent business people. I heard Deputies in this House say that the more innocent you are, the clearer is your conscience and the less you have to fear from a Bill of this kind. Do we not all know that the racketeer does not care a jack straw about the penal provisions in this Bill? He is used to taking risks of one kind or another. It is the man whose conscience is clear who is most fearful and most timorous when he finds himself ignominiously hauled, as he well may be, before this commission and cross-examined and cross-questioned as if he were a criminal in the dock. The more innocent you are and the clearer your conscience, the more that sort of thing eats into your mind. We all know the old chestnut about the man who got a telegram telling him to flee because all had been found out. The innocent man wondered what he had done. That, hackneyed as it is, contains a universal truth. The racketeer has nothing to fear because it is part of his life to take risks. The decent businessman who has never done an injustice in his life and who is suddenly hauled up before this commission will be fearful and timorous of what may be said to him or of what may be said by people of him.

I have criticised this measure, but I do not want to sit down and leave myself subject to the reproach that I have offered nothing but destructive criticism. I say that a method should be found to devise a way of dealing with the evils which we seek to remedy. I suggest that certain principles should be declared—principles on which whatever body which is to act, whether it be the courts or a commission, will act, and that certain specified restrictive practices should be defined or at least described. Any trader who is hurt by these restrictive practices should have the right to resort to the courts.

I know that court procedure is expensive and cumbersome and that sometimes it involves great delay but it will not be anything like the delay involved in the machinery contained in this Bill. I think also that it should not be left merely to the individual trader to take action where those restrictive practices are in operation but that a public official should be appointed either in the Attorney-General's office or in the Department of Industry and Commerce charged with the duty of watching over the public interest in reference to trade practices of a restrictive character or operations by big businessmen for the purpose of downing their little competitors. He should be charged with that duty in the public interest. If he has initiative and sufficient money, a private trader can invoke the law. I submit that simple machinery and inexpensive methods could be devised to enable him to do so. There should be a public officer whose duty it would be to sift charges, to examine practices, and then to haul the offender before whatever courts, civil or criminal, may be thought proper.

That procedure involves the use of our judiciary and our judicial machinery. One would think from some of the things that people say in this House and outside it—the Minister for Industry and Commerce is one of the worst offenders—that the courts of justice and our judiciary system were set up entirely for the benefit of lawyers. We set up, under our Constitution, a judiciary system and gave independence to our judiciary. That was done for the protection of the public interest. We adopted, or partly copied the system, of the separation of powers the model of which I suppose would be that in existence in the United States of America. The present Minister for Industry and Commerce spends most of his time in denigrating judicial processes and endeavouring to filch, at the expense of the judiciary for the Executive, powers which should be vested in the body set up to see that justice is done, namely, the judiciary. At the outset I said that the objection which we and everybody had to these restrictive practices and other practices by which wealthy manufacturers and traders, men of property and influence, are able to ruin their small competitors, was founded on the fact that injustice was being perpetrated. Equally, justice must be given to these people who are supposed to be charged with these practices. They are entitled to make their case and the place to make their case is in our courts.

We are also told that the law of evidence is something that prevents justice being done. The law of evidence was evolved over the centuries from experience gained in actual cases, and the sole purpose of the law of evidence is to see that truth prevails and that justice is done. I suggested as one method, the method of defining, describing and enumerating the powers, and of allowing traders to seek their remedies from the courts, supplementing that in the public interest by the assistance of a public official, whose duty would be to inquire into these practices and see that they are brought to the light of day and action taken upon them. If that does not commend itself to the Government, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce still thinks that the suggestions I am making emanate from a barrister who wants to make money out of the transaction, then at least let us have some sort of independent commission that will not be subject to the dictates of the Minister appointing it or of the Government in power.

I want to emphasise again that the objection I have to this body being political, being appointable and removable by a politician, is not an objection based upon my strong objection to the present Government. It is based on principle; no matter what Government is in power or what commission is operating, the policy in regard to these restrictive trade practices will still apply. The Minister purports to tell the House what his policy is in regard to that matter, but another Government may succeed this Government, which may well have a policy of restrictive practices, a Government which believes that restrictive practices are good for the public, and they will carry out that policy through the machinery enshrined in this Bill. If we are to have any sort of proper inquiry, any sort of hope that free enterprise will be safeguarded against those practices which are preventing the exercise of freedom of action by that system of free enterprise, then you must have proper machinery to operate the Bill. I suggest to the Minister that he should at least listen to the suggestions that are made, and use the combined ingenuity of all sections of this House to devise better machinery than is proposed in this Bill.

I entirely agree with what Deputy Dillon said about the penalties in this Bill. They are just laughable. The Minister said that they were heavy, but nobody will take the slightest notice of them. Imagine a big businessman who has been guilty of restrictive practices being overawed by a threat that he may be sent to jail for ten years. He knows very well that that will not happen. He knows very well that this being a political body, there are ways of getting at the Minister. At least he will believe that there are ways. That is sufficient for my purpose. That is sufficient to damn this Bill as being against the public interest. If it bears the appearance of the possibility of corruption, the method adopted in the Bill should be scrapped forthwith.

I agree with Deputy Dillon that the most effective way to put an end to these restrictive practices is quite apparent, if all sections in the House are resolved to see that an end is put to them. If there is co-operation here to get the best possible machinery that can be devised to achieve that purpose then you will not require your injunctions, your 40/- fines before a district justice, or your pretence that an offender may be sent to jail for ten years for offences under this Bill.

Mr. Corry

All Parties are agreed that steps must be taken to put an end to restrictive trade practices. I believe this Bill will have to be widened. I intend to bring in some amendments to it for that purpose. I intend to amend even the title of the Bill so as to make it read "The Restrictive Trade and Professional Practices Bill".

Mr. J.A. Costello

Including farmers.

Mr. Corry

Deputy Costello suggested that this was a matter for the courts. I guarantee, from my knowledge of the courts, that small as may be the number of farthings which a man has in his pocket when he goes to court, he will have none of them when the court is finished with him. I take it that the offence with which a man may be charged under this Bill must be some kind of criminal offence when he can get as heavy a sentence as ten years. If you go into the Central Criminal Court now you cannot employ a solicitor to defend you as was the practice in the Central Criminal Court hitherto. You must now engage counsel. I do not know who brought in that restrictive trade practice.

Mr. J.A. Costello

It happens that nobody brought it in. You are talking through your hat.

Mr. Corry

That practice is now in force.

Mr. J.A. Costello

Nothing of the sort.

Mr. Corry

You must now employ counsel to defend you in the Central Criminal Court and before you can employ counsel you must first employ a solicitor. That is one of the restrictive practices which I want to be covered by this Bill. Suppose a man charged before the court says: "I would like to be defended by Mr. J. A. Costello," he will be told: "Oh, well, if you are going to have Mr. Costello, you must first employ junior counsel, and in order to employ junior counsel you must have a solicitor," with the result that the poor devil finds himself stuck for a thousand quid before he knows where he is. These are restrictive trade practices, or professional practices, which, to my mind, should be brought into this Bill and dealt with.

An Ceann Comhairle

They are scarcely within the scope of this Bill.

Mr. Corry

I am suggesting amendments to the Bill that will bring them in.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must not speak outside the scope of the Bill that is before the House.

Mr. Corry

A few months ago I had to put before the House this position: that an architect who prepared plans for a hospital got nearly a quarter of a million pounds for preparing the plans before there was a sod or stone put into the hospital. That is a professional practice which, I think, should also be dealt with under this Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is a Bill dealing with the supply and distribution of goods, and I suggest to the Deputy that he should keep within the scope of it.

Mr. Corry

I am suggesting that we should enlarge the scope of it and bring in the professions.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is another matter. The Deputy must keep within the scope of the Bill that is before it.

Mr. Corry

We had the statement made last night by Deputy Dockrell that all the profit which men selling wireless sets had, in addition to the 33? per cent., was about 6½ per cent. more. There you have, if you please, what amounts to a 40 per cent. profit on a wireless set. There is a trade regulation that you can sell a wireless set to a local authority hospital and need not demand from it the 33? per cent. profit, but if you sell it to any other hospital, or to a private individual, you must take the full 40 per cent. profit. If that is not done, you will not get any more wireless sets to sell. That is another practice that I would like to see dealt with.

I, unfortunately, belong to a class in the community the members of which are the victims of all these restrictive trade practices. I mean, of course, the agricultural community. We are the victims of them all. In another debate, earlier this evening, Deputy O'Gorman asked me had I any money invested in worsted mills. I have not. I never robbed anybody so I have no money to invest in anything except the land. As far as I am concerned, every penny that I have is invested in the land of this country.

I do not know who is going to go to jail for the Minister under this Bill because the Department of Industry and Commerce has been guilty of several restrictive practices. For instance, this year merchants started purchasing feeding barley at 24/- per barrel. At the start of the season, when the moisture content in feeding barley was from 20 to 22 per cent. a regulation was made under which Grain Importers, Ltd., would take in the barley at 59/6. As time went on, the harvest, thank God, having been very good, the moisture content fell to 18 and to 16 per cent. As a matter of fact, I saw a few samples in which the moisture content was as low as 14 per cent. The price was still 24/-, while Grain Importers Ltd. continued to have the guarantee of 59/6—11s. 6d. a barrel or £5 15s. a ton on barley alone. That is a restrictive practice which, I think, the Department of Industry and Commerce will have to deal with.

I was present on a deputation recently to the Minister for Agriculture at which statements were made—I saw the invoices myself—to the effect that, in the case of imported barley delivered in Dublin, the profit which the Dublin merchant got for taking it in at one door and shoving it out at the other, was a guinea a barrel or ten guineas a ton. I think it is time that some legislation was passed to protect the unfortunate agricultural community against that kind of profit.

We have the same thing with regard to seed wheat and artificial manures. If one goes to buy a tractor or some piece of agricultural machinery one finds that, under a regulation laid down by the manufacturers, their recognised agent is going to take from £100 to £120 out of the tractor that one buys, and that, if he does not, he will not get any more tractors to sell. It is time that that particular game ended here. These are facts.

Deputy Cunningham pointed out last night that, if some person living in a village wants to put up a petrol pump to supply his neighbours with petrol, he is up against another restrictive trade practice. That person will not get the pump unless he belongs to a certain secret society. In the village of Killeagh, in my constituency, I have seen three different people make application from time to time for the provision of a petrol pump there, but it was not until a member of a secret society applied for it that it was obtained. These are restrictive trade practices which, I hope, will be dealt with under this Bill.

I represent a class of the community the members of which are, I may say, serfs as far as the trades and professions in this country are concerned. I have a very definite objection to the class of restriction under which an able-bodied man will pull into my field, light his pipe or cigarette inside in the front of his lorry, and then have the £3 10s. boys load the lorry for him. He has his £9 a week, but the poor devil who has been ploughing with a tractor and taking out a crop with it, has £3 10s. The man with the £9 a week will sit in the lorry while it is being loaded in the field. When it is loaded he will drive it to the railway station, and, again, sit inside it while it is being emptied. If he attempts to get out and take a fork, there is another restrictive trade practice to deal with him. It is time to deal with all these restrictive trade practices.

Producers in this country work in the frost and the snow and the rain at from £3 10s. to £4 a week to produce goods and when they have finished the non-productive side of the game comes in. I happened to take a stroll yesterday up what we will call Deputy Alfie Byrne's country and I saw there a few rabbits displayed in a window at 2/4 each. The person who spent half the night catching these rabbits only got 1/2 for them. That means that there is 100 per cent. profit, plus the value of the skin. I do not know what they get for them, but that was a pretty big jump. These are some of the things which are happening. Swede turnips which are bought at £4 or £5 a ton are being sold at from 4d. to 6d. each. It is time that these manoeuvres were ended.

As I said, I do not believe in the alternative plan proposed by Deputy Costello of handing these matters over to the lawyers and the judges, who, after all, are also appointed by political Parties, because there will be nothing left for the person who brings a case before the courts after he has paid the costs. I am anxious to see this Bill go through. As I said, there are as many restrictive practices on the part of the Department of Industry and Commerce as on the part of any profiteer that I know of in this country. The Department of Industry and Commerce allow Grain Importers, Limited, an exorbitant profit on what has to be sold back to the farmer again to feed his live stock. I should like the Minister to tell us whether that will be allowable under this Bill. An end must be put to the profiteering racket. The community whom I have the honour to represent here are the underdogs who are suffering for all the rest. I do not believe in the Department of Industry and Commerce saying: "You can have such a price", and then, because the price is so high, the worker in that industry getting double the wage of the producer.

I have given one instance where the unfortunate person growing and pulling and loading beet has roughly about £3 15s. per week, while the man who came into the field to take it away gets £9 a week. When any agricultural produce leaves the hands of the £3 10s. man in this country it is a £7 a week job from that on. I think the Bill is essential and necessary, but there are classes of the community who must be brought under this Bill and on the Committee Stage I shall try to have them brought in. Failing that, we shall have to prepare a Bill for them on something the same lines.

There is no justification for the manner in which the building trade is carried on in this country. That is one of the things which is responsible for the increase in the cost of living. In my opinion, builders' providers are reaping fabulous profits. Everybody engaged in that industry, from the builders' providers down to the gentlemen who will lay 80 bricks a day, forms a vicious circle, and the unfortunate individual who wants to get a home has to pay for that. I regret that we cannot bring other sections of the community under this Bill. The gentlemen who prevent a member of their profession from applying for and taking up a permanent post because the local authority concerned are not prepared to pay a salary of over £1,000——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is travelling very far from the Bill. This is a Bill concerning restrictive trade practices in regard to the supply and distribution of goods. I reminded the Deputy of that before and he has travelled very far from it.

Mr. Corry

It is my intention to endeavour to widen the scope of the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may try to amend the Bill within its present scope, but to enlarge the scope of the Bill is another matter.

Mr. Corry

I think I would be able to do it. I am just pointing out the things which are not in the Bill and which should be in it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot travel the road he is travelling on this Bill.

Mr. Corry

We will get another opportunity of doing so, I hope. I think that the Bill is essential. If we are to have any check on the rise in costs in this country where the ordinary working people are fleeced a Bill of this kind is absolutely essential. I do not agree with the remedy put forward by Deputy Costello. Deputy Morrissey, as reported in column 1076 of the Official Report of November 6th, said:

"I agree entirely with the Minister that there is a problem in relation to restrictive practices in this country that must be dealt with. I agree entirely that legislation is the only way to deal with it. I am not satisfied, frankly, that this is going to be effective."

I am hoping that it will be effective and that it will end the fleecing of the agricultural community in this country.

Mr. Cosgrave

This debate has emphasised the agreement among all sections that there is need for legislation and for action to deal with restrictive practices. The discussion has proceeded on the assumption that Deputies on all sides accept the fact that restrictive practices have existed and exist at present which are injurious to the community. The discussion is in the main confined to the proposals in the Bill and to suggestions Deputies have made to improve them and make them more effective. The function of the House in considering this matter, as indeed in considering all matters, should be to design the most effective machinery possible. We should provide a remedy for existing abuses and a headline for those who while engaging in trade or business are anxious to keep within the law.

The main objections that have been voiced to the Bill are to its scope and extent—the fact that it does not go far enough in some directions or take within its ambit abuses or practices which Deputies consider should be covered. This matter has received some consideration over a number of years in the Department of Industry and Commerce. I think I was in the Department when the original inquiry was instituted and it was apparent to anyone considering even the preliminary reports of the information that was gathered that a number of abuses existed and that the remedy for some of them would not suit in other cases. The reports of the inquiries which were conducted by that Department, which covers various activities connected with industry, commerce and trade generally, revealed in a number of cases an unsatisfactory system of trading, a system that was in some instances contrary to the public interest and to the welfare of the community as a whole. There is, however, a great danger that one section or group in the community might see the mote in the other fellow's eye and be oblivious of the beam in their own. It is difficult to frame legislation to cover every type of case where abuses manifest themselves. If there is one fault in the Bill it is that its scope appears too limited. It may be—I am quite certain of it—that separate legislation would be required to deal with certain matters. Deputies have referred to some restrictive practices that have grown up under statutory authority, other practices created by conditions that have existed over a period of years, practices confined to services rather than to the sale and distribution of goods, restrictions confined to trades and professions, and restrictions confined to groups in the community who have taken measures to safeguard their own interests and whose efforts may have resulted over the years in injury to other sections or to the community as a whole.

The Bill certainly prompts the House to consider whether the whole matter should not have been the subject of more detailed investigation and inquiry before legislation was drafted. The functions peculiar to the Department of Industry and Commerce were confined to the sale and distribution of goods and so is the Bill, but the question of services comes close to the sale and distribution of goods, and in a number of cases it is difficult to divorce them. To the person concerned they are often in the same category, and this Bill has certainly the defect that the definition in so far as there is a definition in it does not include services. Section 6 says that the commission may inquire into the conditions which obtain in regard to the supply and distribution of any kind of goods. One of the matters recently investigated by the Prices Advisory Body was motor insurance premiums. I think that that investigation originated in, or at any rate followed, a query I put to the Minister some time last December or at the end of last year, when the insurance companies notified the public, traders, and motor-car owners that it was proposed to raise the insurance premiums. Subsequently the Prices Advisory Body investigated the matter, and quite recently an announcement was made that the original proposal to raise insurance premiums by 25 per cent. was exactly double what that body considered fair and justified by the figures.

This particular Bill does not take services within its scope. While the Prices Advisory Body may investigate a matter, it is obvious that the public interest was served by an investigation by an impartial or an independent body. For that reason it is important to consider how the public interest may be served by an investigation into a matter of this sort, conducted under an independent or separate body. The particular service which is being rendered, or, if you like, benefit conferred by insuring was one in which many people in the community had an interest, and the fact that it was possible to get a reduction after an investigation not merely justifies the existence of the Prices Advisory Body, but it shows that, when a matter of that sort was carefully examined, when all the facts were presented and the case argued by the interested persons who put their point of view on the matter had been probed fully by those charged with that particular duty, a substantial benefit or improvement took place.

This Bill is only for the purpose of dealing with goods distributed and goods sold. It does not deal with services. It may not be strictly within the scope of the measure to deal now with services, but it has been adverted to. I think, during the earlier part of the discussion that one of the particular services which has a restricting influence is the banking service. I do not want to have my remarks confused with the general suggestion that there is a restriction of credit, but the banking service, as it operates in this country, limits its facilities by reason of the discussions which take place at the Banks' Standing Committee. Consequently, the same facilities are available to the public, no matter what bank they may place their business with. No matter what bank an individual may have his account in or a business firm may have their account, the facilities at present afforded—and this has not recently come about—by the banking system in this country result in the extraordinary position that there is virtually no competition between banks. Whatever competition is there is not on the basis of better terms being made available by one bank as against another. I do not think that is in the public interest, and it is a matter that should be investigated.

Very often there are criticisms expressed here that the banks are operating against the public interest, that they are restricting credit, and so on. To my mind, the banks erred just as grievously when they gave credit too freely in some cases as when they restricted it too rigidly in others. One of the faults of the present system is that there is virtually no competition between the banks concerned. That system has prevailed and will continue to prevail as long as they are allowed to operate on the present basis.

I do not regard myself as having a bee in my bonnet about the banks nor do I assume everything they do to be contrary to the public interest, or criticise them when it is merely a case of credit restriction. Many people are familiar with the conditions which prevailed at the end of the emergency particularly in so far as property was concerned, when the banks erred on the side of too much credit, which resulted in inflated and excessively enhanced prices being paid for houses and other property of that nature. Again, in the last 12 or 18 months the banks have erred on the other side, but the point I want to impress on the House is that the system at present in operation under which there is virtually no competition between the banks because of the rate of interest and other matters of that sort being decided by the Banks' Standing Committee is a matter that requires investigation.

It may be that services which are excluded from the scope of this Bill would require to be dealt with in a separate measure, but it is obvious that services and all that is regarded as coming within that definition are just as vital to the public interest and require to be investigated as fully as merely the supply and distribution of goods.

When this matter was considered in Britain a very elaborate inquiry was undertaken. Particular trades were examined, the conditions pertaining to them were considered by the committee and a lengthy report was published. That committee conducted at least part of its inquiry in public, and published the result of its investigation. Subsequently the Labour Government of the day published a White Paper and announced that it proposed to introduce legislation. The Government then went out of office and no legislation has followed. Nevertheless the investigation which was undertaken by that committee extended over a very wide range of goods.

It is, I think, important to consider here whether sufficient inquiry has been conducted into the operations which are the subject of the proposed legislation. When this matter was first considered by the Department of Industry and Commerce various inquiries revealed the defects that I have mentioned and the defects which the Minister referred to in the course of his introductory speech and the various matters that have since been the subject of discussion here. I always felt that we were dealing with only one limited aspect of the whole problem of restrictive practices. While the inquiry then initiated blazed the trail, it dealt only with particular aspects of the problem and the problem now needs further and wider consideration by the Government and by the House.

Reference has been made here to the fact that monopolies are restrictive and that some bodies are restrictive in their operations. There must be a good deal of confusion of thought on this matter when such references are made.

If a particular body is established under statute and its duties, functions and responsibilities are defined, it is the responsibility of the House, the Government or an individual member, if the operations of that particular statutory authority are regarded as inimical to the public interest, to raise the matter in the House and, if necessary, the House can take legislative steps to deal with the problem. You cannot on the one hand advocate the nationalisation or establishment of an independent statutory authority and, on the other hand, when that authority is set up, criticise it because it is operating in a particular way.

Many measures introduced here have the effect of limiting competition in some way or another or of restricting or confining to a particular body certain functions and duties. It is contary to reason to blame the particular authority for operating within its statutory limits when the House, probably in many cases quite recently, enacted the legislation setting up the body.

This Bill, however, purports to deal with the supply and distribution of goods. A number of Deputies have referred to the fact that the commission that it is proposed to set up is not the best way of dealing with the matter. Some Deputies have suggested that it might be better to leave the matter to the courts. The great example of leaving this problem to the courts is the United States of America and anyone seeing the working of the anti-trust laws in the United States of America as operated by the courts would not wish to emulate that example here.

In my opinion, the courts are not fitted to deal with this problem. There is a number of reasons why the courts are objectionable. There is the question of delays, although that is not the main objection. It is quite likely that considerable delay will be involved in investigation by any commission that may be established. From the experience we have had of the Prices Advisory Body or the Prices Tribunal we know that any application before such bodies inevitably involves delay. Ultimately, if the result achieved is satisfactory and is beneficial to the community, we can afford some delay. The principal objection to leaving this matter to the courts is that the courts are established to interpret the law and not to investigate the operations of particular trades or services carried on by an organisation or by an individual.

One particular defect in this Bill is that there is no definition of restrictive practices, no indication of what particular practices may be restrictive, or of their effect on the community. It is essential that some definition, however wide, should be inserted in the Bill to guide the commission in the scope of its inquiries. It is laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 6 that the commission shall comply with the directions of the Minister as to the nature and scope of an inquiry made at his request. That attempt at a definition has many objections. It is always open to the charge, no matter what Minister may be in charge of the Department, no matter what Government may be in office, that he is limiting the scope of the inquiry for some particular reason. The less control a Minister has in this matter, the better for the commission, and certainly the better for the Minister. There is nothing worse than having a Minister in the position that everyone that is interested or may be interested can raise his particular point of view or the point of view of the association that he represents or the interest for which he purports to speak, and suggest to the Minister that the inquiry should be confined within certain limits or that the scope should be widened, that the commission should be allowed to investigate the whole of a particular matter.

Other objections are to the sections dealing with the publication of fair trading rules. I do not know whether or not it is accepted that traders generally who are operating within the law need fair trading rules to guide them. I can see no value whatever in publishing fair trading rules unless they have some sanction or authority. The commission will have problems enough without publishing rules and regulations that have no sanction, no authority, that are merely a headline.

The House should decide on a definition to be included in the Bill, a definition, however vague, however unsatisfactory—when this commission has been in operation for some time improvements will suggest themselves and further amending legislation will be required—and, by that definition, indicate in general terms to the commission the scope and extent of its operations and the particular practices which the Oireachtas decides are inimical to the public welfare.

There are certain other matters in connection with the Bill which have been the subject of comment. I believe that Sections 4 and 5 are worthless and that Sections 6 and 7 should be amended. Section 6 should be widened to allow the commission to investigate services as well as the supply and distribution of goods.

Reference has been made in the course of the debate to the fact that the Bill does not purport to deal with restrictive practices as applied to trade unions or professions and that these, also, should come under the scope of an investigation. There should be no fundamental objection to an inquiry into these matters if that is deemed desirable, but it is obvious that a commission which will investigate restrictions in supply and distribution of goods cannot investigate restrictions in trade union or professional activity. I know that if the scope of the Bill is widened it will be argued that it would be possible to appoint particular members for an investigation, say, into trade union activity or into the activity of professional organisations or bodies. In the main, trade union activity is carried on under statute and if that requires investigation it should be investigated separately. Similarly, professional qualifications and practices—as in the case of the legal or medical profession or in the case of architects—are carried on under statutory authority. Consequently, if an investigation is necessary it should be possible to consider it independently.

This particular Bill deals with the supply and distribution of goods, and I believe it should be widened to include services. I mentioned earlier the question of banking as a matter that requires investigation. I do not speak as one who has a bee in his bonnet about the banks or their operations, but if there is any lack of faith here or if confidence is shaken in the banking system, the banking directors themselves will have a large share in the responsibility for creating that position. I believe that this measure would be substantially improved by widening the definition to include services.

In the Schedule the Minister takes power to appoint temporary members for the purpose of a particular inquiry. I believe that is open to the objection I have mentioned earlier in connection with the Minister defining the scope of the inquiry. It will be represented always that whenever a Minister is responsible he will have particular interests or he will be open to pressure. That does not apply merely because it is a Fianna Fáil Minister or a Fine Gael Minister or someone else. There will be the criticism that he appointed particular members for a particular purpose. If they are too severe in their approach to the matter under investigation, he will be regarded as being out to destroy those particular offenders and to ruin their business or the operations in which they are engaged. On the other hand, if the persons he appoints do not carry out the investigation as fully or make as exhaustive an inquiry into the matter as public opinion desired or as was required, in the opinion of any group in the community, the Minister will be criticised because the scope of the inquiry was limited. I believe that the Schedule should be amended so that it will be left open to the commission to co-opt members for a particular inquiry or to appoint assessors to advise them on a particular matter.

If Section 1 (3) of the Schedule is amended, it will eliminate an objection that is bound to be made—just as if Sections 6 and 7 are amended as I suggested earlier. I do not think it is desirable that an investigation should be carried on by an individual member. A minimum of two should carry out any investigation and an amendment may be moved later which would make that possible.

There is another matter in connection with the Schedule that should receive attention. In Section 3 it is provided that if a member is personally interested in any matter he should not take part in its investigation. This clause is reminiscent of the clause in some of the Acts dealiing with public bodies or statutory corporations, where directors are obliged to reveal their interest in any matter where a firm dealing with that particular body is concerned. This particular clause obliges the member of the commission to inform the Minister and he shall not, unless authorised by the Minister, act during the consideration of that matter. I think that should be put definitely, that no member who has an interest in a matter may act while that matter is under consideration.

The question of penalties has been the subject of considerable discussion here. It is very difficult to know what effect a penalty may have on offenders. It depends entirely on the offender and on the particular matter concerned. A penalty that will deter one person may have no influence on another: a penalty that will have an effect on a small company may have no effect on a large one. A penalty such as is prescribed in the Bill of a monetary kind or a term of imprisonment may have no beneficial result and the only way to deal with offenders in these cases may be to prevent them from engaging in the particular trade or operation which is the subject of unfavourable comment after investigation by the commission concerned.

Provision is made under Section 8 for the Minister to make an Order after a report. The Order will not have the force of law until it is approved by the Oireachtas. One of the objections to this particular section as drafted at the moment is that the responsibility for taking action rests with the Minister. I suppose it will be open to members of the House to object, although under existing procedure it would be difficult to amend an Order.

Most of these statutory Orders are either approved or rejected, that is, if not rejected they are approved. This particular type of Order is something new in statutory procedure. As far as we are concerned here, it is a development of which we have had no experience. I think that the recommendations of the commission should be framed in whatever way the commission wish. Then, if the matter requires investigation, it should be the subject of ordinary discussion here and any Order should be capable of amendment in the same way as a Bill is amended.

Reference has been made to the fact that one of the authorised officers provided for in the Bill is a member of the Garda. I do not think it is desirable to have the Garda investigate matters of this sort. There may be certain matters that the Garda authorities are competent to investigate that would be the subject of consideration by this commission or the subject of an inquiry; but there will be a wide range of matters under consideration by this commission, where the commission will want information and that information should be made available under statutory direction. If a particular firm or individuals refuse to supply the information concerned then the penalties that are ordinarily provided and provided in this Bill can be invoked. To have a Garda employed investigating particular trade practices appears to me to be an extension of the activity of the Garda into spheres in which they were never intended to operate. They will have neither the time nor the inclination to investigate. It will conflict with the ordinary duties and responsibility of the Garda authorities.

I think the section should be amended and that whatever authorised officers are required are available in the, Department of Industry and Commerce and can be authorised by the commission to secure whatever information or particulars the commission may require.

There is, however, one matter that I think should be considered by the Department. Vague suggestions have been made to-day that Departments and statutory bodies are responsible for operating restrictive practices. To-day I adverted to the operation of the quota system. The quota system which is operated in order to protect industry has in itself a restrictive effect. I am not now speaking of the restriction in regard to limiting imports. The quota system, as operated for a wide variety of goods, confines licences to traders who are in business on a particular date and who had a particular import quota over and above those traders.

Quotas are granted to applicants on the basis of a minimum quota but a great number of persons and firms have found themselves in the dilemma that no matter how they expand their businesses they can never get an increase in quota until the operation of that quota is revised or reconsidered. In many cases the datum year has long since passed and in some cases the datum year decided was either pre-war or immediately after the emergency.

I must confess that I had difficulty in operating this or in finding a satisfactory solution to it myself. No Department should operate quota systems which will have the effect of confining trade to a pattern that existed or was established, say, any more than two or three years ago. There should be some scheme devised which will enable new entrants to get into the trade and those who are in it, if they have the initiative and desire, to expand the particular trade. The quota system, as operated in respect of a large variety of goods, has a limiting effect and has confined trade to those who are already in it or restricted those who are in it within particular limits.

I think that is a system which should be the subject of an investigation by the officers of the Minister's Department. It may not be necessary in the operation of a quota system to have it investigated by the Fair Trade Commission, but it is a matter which requires investigation so long as we are satisfied that restrictive practices are there, and that these restrictive practices should be eliminated.

Some comment was made on the proposals enshrined in the Bill by outside organisations. I am surprised that there was such little comment. Deputy Larkin, I think, adverted to the fact that, when the Prices Advisory Body was first established, the newspapers were full of criticism, of fears expressed by traders, and of the annoyance and indignation expressed by various organisations. In fact, some of them expressed the view that it was socialism, and that we had gone much too far.

I think that the Prices Advisory Body since it was established has justified its existence, that it has at any rate shown that it is possible to effect improvements by a careful and impartial investigation into matters of this sort. The Fair Trade Commission will be to a considerable extent charged with the same responsibility, except over a different sphere, as was the Prices Advisory Body in connection with prices.

There is nothing to be feared if people are operating within the law and are giving what the public regard as a square deal and a fair deal. If traders, organisations and individuals are giving the public good value and a fair deal, nobody will recognise that quicker than the people once the facts are made available. It is because some of the particular organisations concerned, because certain individuals in some cases or individual firms are anxious to avoid the light of day on their activities, that there is suspicion.

I have no doubt that quite a number of trade practices and methods which are at present the subject of criticism by individuals and which for some time past have been the subject of comment will, when the full facts are investigated, be accepted as not only giving the public good service but as being in their interest and that of the trade.

Quite a number of trade practices enable the public to get articles of standard quality and are a guarantee that the articles concerned measure up to a particular standard. I hope that when this Bill becomes an Act and the commission is established it will not operate to prevent the public getting articles of a proper standard and providing services up to the standard which we consider the public should have.

Organisations that are operating properly, giving the public good value or traders who are members of these organisations should not be apprehensive of an inquiry. It is quite possible that an investigation into this matter will show that the extent of the restrictive practices is not as great as might be imagined from time to time by reason of a particular matter that has come to light or particular cases that have already been investigated. I do not believe that this Bill will result in a substantial reduction in prices.

I do not think that anything that is contained in this Bill as it is or if amended will succeed in providing the public with goods at substantially reduced prices. As far as that is concerned the benefits will be much less than anyone who is interested in this problem would hope for. It is sufficient that the House and those who have considered this matter are satisfied that an investigation is warranted and that it is our responsibility to try to improve the legislation, so that the machinery which will be established will, on the basis of the information at present available, be the best for investigating the particular matters concerned.

Dr. Browne

Coming in at this stage of the discussion, it is refreshing to be able to feel quite relieved of any responsibility for having to make a case for this Bill. The Minister led off with his excellent review of the situation and was followed by Deputy Morrissey who reiterated most of the arguments made by the Minister, and on the whole the general feeling is one of welcome for this Bill. I am largely interested in one particular aspect of the Bill and it is, I suppose, the most important—the method of operation of the commission in trying to ensure that it will operate efficiently and effectively when in motion.

I was impressed by the contribution made by Deputy Dillon. His arguments were most cogent and they were marshalled in the very coherent way of which he is a master, and I ended up, after listening to him and having separated the ranting from the common sense, of which there was a certain amount, with the impression that he had made a very excellent case for the introduction of the Bill. But, with Deputy Dillon, I could recall that the first time I listened to that series of very compelling arguments was some years back, shortly after the formation of the inter-Party Government. In those early days, when, I must confess, I was impressed by the eloquence of Deputy Dillon, then Minister, I was completely sold on the idea argued by Deputy Dillon that a restrictive trade practices Bill was imperative, if we were to restore a reasonable modicum of fair dealing for those who are most seriously affected by such practices, the consumers.

Nobody is less interested in recrimination than I am but at the same time, as I listened towards the end, rather more wearily and less patiently, to these clever witticisms and damning exposes of racketeers, of rings and of cartels, I began to wonder what function Deputy Dillon felt he claimed in this Assembly and for what purpose was he returned to this Oireachtas. Does he feel that his sole function is to entertain and divert some of his own members by these interesting reflections, condemnations and damnations of all these rings, cartels and restrictive practices, while he is safely ensconced behind the barricades of the Opposition Benches? When he was on the other side, endowed with all the power and authority of a Minister in a Government, these condemnations and cavortings and concern for the consumer were confined solely and entirely to the privacy of the Cabinet.

The front Government Benches are the benches from which I should like to hear Deputy Dillon make a modicum of these impressive and eloquent dissertations to which he treats us from time to time, now that he is protected by having walked from one side of the House to the other. Words are easy. It is the Minister who has taken in hand the carrying out of the actions which those words should have meant for Deputy Dillon, if there was one vestige of sincerity in this man's protestations that he is interested in the welfare of the community as a whole. The power was there and the authority was there. He contested that there was a serious, a grave need—and he has done it in recent days—for such a Bill, and I charge that, as a member of a Government with full authority to bring in such a Bill, it was Deputy Dillon's bounden duty to do so.

Deputy Dillon spent some time gibing at the Fianna Fáil Party, and at the Minister in particular, for his decision to bring this Bill in. Of all the Deputies in this House, there is no man less worthy of that gibe than the man who now occupies the position of Minister for Industry and Commerce. I doubt if there is any man in this House who has done more to establish the prestige of our people and of our industries in the time in which he has been in office. When Deputy Dillon can lay just claim to one-thousandth part of the achievements of that man, he may claim a right to criticise. Deputy Dillon is an unrepentant free trader and in the discussion of tariffs, quotas and restrictions during the time I was associated with him, he demonstrated that repeatedly and ad nauseam. He resented the fact that we were attempting to establish Irish industries, that we were attempting to cast off dependence on Great Britain, that there was an attempt to get rid of the shoneen mind, the slave mind, the dependent mind, the mentality which said: “If they can produce it, why should we bother our heads?” That epitomises Deputy Dillon and the people on the Opposition Benches, each and every one of them of whom I have any knowledge.

Mr. Sweetman

You have very little knowledge of them then.

Dr. Browne

He talked about cement. Deputy Dillon's contribution to the debate on cement was largely confined to the reflection that one could import British Portland cement of a high standard at a particular price and why, therefore, go to the trouble of establishing an industry here? It is more than likely that some of our people were quarrying stone for that cement or helping in its manufacture in the British factories. That, as we know, did not worry Deputy Dillon; with a family of ten it is a good thing that nine should emigrate and one should stay at home, a philosophy I hope Deputy Dillon will never have to apply in his own personal circumstances.

Mr. Lemass

Hear, hear!

Dr. Browne

I do not know what the Minister's views are on the subject of Irish industry. I do not know what long-term policy he had or has in relation to Irish industry beyond the fact that he is a staunch proponent of the idea that we should have Irish industries as good as and, if possible, better, than the best in the world. Were I taking over control in 1932 in an atmosphere dominated by the slave mind created by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government during its years in office, and were I anxious to develop Irish industry, my policy would have been the policy adopted by the Minister. The development of Irish industry was a prodigious task in the face of the vast vested interests behind the established agents, the big business interests and the five per centers. The attitude at that time was that we could do nothing as well as they did it across the water, that we were lazy and incompetent, that we had not the know-how, and all we could do was, as both Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Dillon said at that time, import from Great Britain. That was much easier. That was not true merely in connection with cement. It was true in connection with everything. We could import quite easily, and we could export our young people to create these imports for us.

The most logical step for the Minister to take in 1932 was to give every incentive and every encouragement to the establishment of Irish industry. The only encouragement he could give at that time was a protected market and a guaranteed market for the output of these new industries. It was quite rational behaviour on the part of the Minister to decide that our young industries should be protected up to the hilt in order to ensure their survival during the first years of their life and that they should not be put out of business by the English industrialists coming over here and offering higher agency fees in order to put these young industries out of production. I know of one practical example of that. In the case of a food processing industry, three or four English companies conspired together in order to put three or four products on the market, under-cutting each time until eventually they succeeded in driving a particular young Irish industry out of production.

The policy of tariffs and quota restrictions was the logical answer in our situation at the time and it is quite wrong for Deputy Dillon, who is such a profound admirer of the American way of life and all that it stands for, to brand the Minister now as the progenitor of the whole conception of trade protection. America is a great, a wealthy and a highly-industrialised nation. It is not ashamed to protect its industries and its workers and to maintain a certain level of employment by the use of these devices. The Minister's attitude to industry in the past was both reasonable and logical. It was obvious that some protection must be given. I would much prefer to see an Irish industry employing Irish men and women any time in the production of an article even though it might be possible to import that article cheaper than it can be produced at home. Once industries are established, however, and once they are capable of producing a high-quality article, I would feel justified in advising such industries that they have now enjoyed so many years of protection and so many years in which to establish themselves, and the time has come when I must concentrate on protecting the consumer.

It is ridiculous to describe all our industrialists as racketeers. On the face of it that is obviously untrue. There are racketeers within the comity of Irish industry and it is in order to separate the sheep from the goats that this Bill has now to be introduced. As an observer on the touchline watching the developments that have taken place, I believe this Bill is necessary. It is agreed that practices have grown up which militate against the development of Irish industry and the production of a high quality article at the minimum cost. Surely it is of interest for us to consider the rather unique situation in which we find ourselves. On one side we have a number of State monopolies. On the other side we have a number of established industries protected over the years. Surely it is obvious that we need not direct the punitive provisions in this Bill against these State monopolies. It would be a very unusual situation to create a State company and then go chasing after it with these inquiries, tribunals and commissions. A State monopoly gives us some protection against the introduction of restrictive practices and the development of practices which lead to the production of a high cost, low quality article. The fact of the matter is that this is the third chance—I believe myself probably the last chance—which the private enterprise conception of business operation has received and will receive. It received encouragement, it received protection and it was necessary to set up the Prices Section of the Department of Industry and Commerce.

It must be quite obvious—for reasons, I am quite certain, which have nothing to do with the conscientiousness of the civil servants in the Department of Industry and Commerce but possibly through lack of powers— that to most of us the Prices Section of the Department of Industry and Commerce does not appear to work successfully, if I may put it that way. It may be perfectly satisfied with the results of its work but, from a man in the street, they can take it that nobody is satisfied that the Prices Section of the Department of Industry and Commerce has the trust or great regard of the ordinary man in the street. That is chance number one.

When the industrialists had an opportunity to go in and put their case and have a fair price apportioned to them for any particular article it appears that they did not take their chance because then Deputy Norton announced the formation of the Prices Tribunal. The Prices Tribunal is composed of men and a woman who, I know, are of the highest integrity and who apply themselves with the greatest energy to the problems before them. Again, it matters little why, but it is a fact that the Prices Tribunal has completely lost the confidence of the people. The people are now quite certain that the Prices Tribunal is quite ineffective and that, in fact, it has not succeeded in getting at the reason why certain prices are charged which are not in accordance with what people think are fair prices.

We are now down to the third chance which faces the private businessman. As I said in the beginning, it will be a most interesting study to watch the development and the progress and, I hope, the success of this particular Bill in protecting the consumer against the rapacious or the unduly avaricious industrialist. It is important to bear in mind that we are all human and that the dominating incentive in private business is the making of profits. Consequently, while that is so, you are bound, I feel sure, to have a state in which men will pursue that objective irrespective of what they are told or of what they profess to believe and I do not believe that any law of this House will alter that fundamental position.

I am particularly interested, then, in the mechanisation by which this commission will operate. I should like to know if it is possible—I do not know what the Minister has in mind— to give us the answer at this stage but I am particularly interested in the qualifications of the personnel of the commission and also in the mechanisation by which a particular demand is made for a review or an investigation. I agree with Deputy Dillon that it would be a very dangerous practice to allow any person to be able to instigate proceedings or to succeed in having investigations put on foot. I understand that the commission can take proceedings and also the Minister. I wonder if it would be possible for the Minister to say why he has restricted the field in that way. It may be that he feels that it will be possible for us here, by raising matters in the Dáil, to encourage him to proceed in a particular case. I should like to know whether it would be possible to have some committee of the House or some other group of Deputies put in a position to instigate investigations, if they so wish.

The other point is the commission itself. I believe that we all share the hope that the personnel shall be—as I have no doubt it will be, no matter what Government may be in office—of the highest standard. I should like, if possible, that a man to whom, rightly or wrongly, I ascribe tremendous power in modern industry—the power to provide a satisfactory answer, in the most impossible circumstances, for the Revenue Commissioners—a chartered accountant, should be represented on this commission. I believe a chartered accountant is a terribly important person in modern industry. I feel that it is essential that a man of that particular training should be represented on the commission. He is in a position to deal with the figures and books prepared, probably, by one of his colleagues and his services are necessary in order to probe these figures and find out in what way profits are concealed and the true state of affairs hidden from those trying to find out the facts.

I think we all agree that this Bill could be, as Deputy Dillon said in his flamboyant way, a fraud. It could be, in effect, rather like the Prices Tribunal. The Prices Tribunal was quite ineffective. This Bill could set up a commission which would have all the appearances of performing a most desirable function but which, in effect, would allow the manufacturers to snap their fingers at our institutions and at our anxiety to protect the consumer.

I am, naturally, interested in the attack which Deputy Dillon made on Deputy Larkin because Deputy Larkin did not advert to the restrictive practices in the trade union movement. Deputy Larkin is very much more competent to deal with that problem than I am. At the same time, I think that there is not the same case to be made for the extension of a Bill such as this to cover the restriction of entry of apprentices into the various trades as there is for its application to these other trades. I know it is an extremely thorny subject, but it would appear to me understandable that craftsmen and skilled tradesmen of all kinds should have reasonable grounds for fearing the unlimited expansion or the unlimited introduction of apprentices into their various trades and crafts. Again it goes back to the form of society under which we live. We are living under a particular form of society which does not offer any guarantee or expectation to the craftsman or tradesman turned out by our schools that he will find employment for ten or 20 years in his own country. That is a very big subject, and I do not wish to pursue it, but I think that before such an extension of this Bill is considered, that aspect of the matter will have to be taken into account. It is for that reason I think that Deputy Dillon's attack on Deputy Larkin was equally as unjustified as his other attacks.

This Bill has been the latest measure on which we have had a series of interesting displays by the Opposition. I must say that I have been fascinated sitting here for a year or so, watching the antics and the various responses by the different ex-Ministers to measures introduced here from time to time by the present Government. The comment has always been the same: "We agree but we agree only more so; it does not go far enough". We had, for instance, the remarks of Deputy Morrissey after his change from the Department of Industry and Commerce. Deputy Morrissey is undoubtedly a most fair-minded Deputy, but his remark was that the Tánaiste claimed more for this Bill than is actually in it. I think the Tánaiste was very modest in his claim. He expressed the hope that this was a Bill which would achieve its purpose, a Bill which, in the light of experience, we could suitably amend and make more effective. I can well imagine the cries that would have gone up if the Tánaiste had introduced an unreasonable Bill or a Bill which appeared to the Opposition to be unreasonable. This Bill is a fair Bill, an attempt to carry out a terribly difficult and terribly intricate job. For that reason I think the Tánaiste is well justified in moving slowly.

Deputy Morrissey, who had considerable time to introduce such a Bill himself, says that this Bill will not do quite what the Minister intends. We had similar remarks recently on the Agricultural Labourers (Half-Holiday) Bill. It did not go far enough either. The Social Welfare Bill, we were told, had too many means tests. The health scheme, Deputy O'Higgins said, did not go quite far enough. Now we are down to the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill, the Legal Adoption Bill and the Tourist Bill. It has been quite a study to sit here and watch each member of the Opposition stand up, each of them who so recently left a position in which he had power to introduce different Bills—Tourist Bills, Legal Adoption Bills and Restrictive Trade Practices Bills—and taunt the Minister on the other side with remarks such as: "This does not go quite far enough; this is not going to do what you say; why did you not bring in this a long time ago; it is quite a simple matter".

I do not know whether it is the contention or the opinion of the Opposition that this is a sort of university debating society in which you score points off your opponents, in which you put forward opinons and declaim about your convictions, at the same time being quite convinced that you will take no steps to implement these ideas and convictions if the power is ever yours.

Some reference was made to the banks and to restrictive practices of banks. I have no doubt other Deputies will make similar references. I will not enlarge on that subject further than to say that I made propositions in relation to the banks when we were in a position to do something about the banks and I received no support for these propositions. Now Deputies are in full cry after the banks when they are in opposition. May I say equally how fascinating I have found it to observe the conduct of a Party like the Fianna Fáil Party who went to the election last June 12 months? I must confess, to my amazement, that they did not mention, as far as I can recollect, with one exception, any of these propositions that are here now. The extraordinary difference is noticeable to anybody—these people on this side protesting continuously and interminably what they would do and what they will do but silent about what they did not do.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy seems to be travelling away from the Bill.

Dr. Browne

I am about to conclude.

Mr. Norton

He is giving bail for his future good behaviour and he should be allowed to do it.

Dr. Browne

The last person who should get up to talk is the ex-Minister for Social Welfare, absent from North-West Dublin in a recent contest.

Mr. S. Collins

I would not like to say too much about North-West Dublin, if I were you.

Dr. Browne

I am quite content that in the pursuit of this very worthy objective, the protection of the consumer against the unjust or unduly rapacious industrialist, big businessman or shopkeeper, that charge and responsibility lie in safe hands, in the hands of a man who has shown over the years that he will put Irish industry and the Irish people before any other consideration which is more than I can say for the Fine Gael Benches.

Mr. S. Collins

It seems amazing to me that every occasion on which a thwarted ex-Minister of the last Government talks——

Mr. Briscoe

And there are many of them.

Mr. S. Collins

——he uses it purely, no matter what the contents of the legislation may be, to voice personal spleen and spite. I am going to talk on this Bill as one who, over the years that I have been in the Dáil, pressed for the introduction of such a measure. I did not do that or commence doing it when the Tánaiste reassumed the position of Minister for Industry and Commerce. I pressed for it during the years when I was behind the inter-Party Government, not because I believed, as apparently the disconsolate and thwarted Deputy Dr. Browne believes, that this should be the last gesture to private enterprise before whatever particular social order that he conceives takes over. I did so because I believed that restrictive practices in trade may victimise the consumer, and in many cases are a source of serious embarrassment to traders themselves.

I think that this subject merits better consideration than personal vituperations and vilifications by a Deputy, such as Deputy Dr. Browne, and his former colleagues. I would have much admired a contribution from a person as young as Deputy Dr. Browne, he having had ministerial experience, if the speech were made in a spirit of realistic construction towards the main problem at issue. It seems to me about time that Deputy Dr. Browne ceased to air his petty spite and grievances in this House, making use of it as a platform for a continuation of that type of bickering, especially at a time when the House is considering a problem that is of immense interest to all of us and on which, in principle, there is unanimity.

I welcome the introduction of this measure. I wish it all the success which the Tánaiste envisages for it. I wish it even more, if that is possible, with a sane approach to it in this House so that it may be improved. I, in a realistic way, hope to point out what to me are the shortcomings of the Bill, not in any spirit of criticism but rather in a spirit which, I hope, will serve to help the purpose that seems to be the common aim of the members of the House, namely, to get a type of Bill that is going to be satisfactory.

There are many indications of restrictive practices that we all know of. There are many allegations in respect of restrictive practices which, in fact, may not exist, but the allegations are there. Sometimes these may be used in the exigencies of the political situation for the purpose of a general maligning of groups.

I have, first of all, to ask myself the question what is the real nature of this problem, and, secondly, to what extent, if any, does this particular measure meet it. It is true that there have been all kinds of denunciations of different types of cartels or groups by various members in this House. We have heard, over the period immediately prior to the introduction of this Bill and during these discussions on it, rumblings from various organisations against the Bill. I think there is one thing that is patently clear in the Bill, and that is that the person who is carrying on a trade legitimately, or is carrying on any type of business, distributive or other, in a way that is not adverse to the best interests of the consumer, has nothing whatever to fear from the Bill. On the contrary, if these people are without stain, and if their business methods are without plemish, protests going to this commission will serve the purpose of indicating to the public, in a realistic way, the fair trade methods of the people under investigation. If there is nothing wrong there will be nothing to fear from an investigation. On that basis, I think it is most unwise for organisations representing any type of trade or any group of traders to make protests against the Bill.

This Bill is inevitably going to rely for its success on two things—first of all, the type, quality and nature of the members of the commission, and, secondly, their industry and capacity for work. I say that because this problem is one which has been aggravated by circumstances over which the Department itself had no reasonable control. There are certain types of industries and of distributive and other trades which grew up during the war and were the aftermath of the war which need a good deal of straightening out. Some of the confusion or difficulty which may have arisen in a trade may not be the direct responsibility of that trade. In many ways it may have been aggravated by questions of supply in difficult times.

We have to ask ourselves are there objectionable trade restrictions and trade restrictive practices there at all. There seems to be the common basis for saying that we are all agreed there are. This commission is a way of facing that problem. I feel that the mind of the House would have been allayed, and that a more realistic slant would have been given to the possible capacity of the commission, if we had got an indication of the type of personnel that may make up the commission. Deputy Dr. Browne, apparently, has one profession that he retains respect for—that is the chartered accountant. He has suggested that such a person might be a very useful member of the commission. Even though a chartered accountant might be a most estimable person to have on the commission, I, personally, would far sooner have, if I were in the Tánaiste's position, an experienced cost accountant on it who would be able to analyse the figures appearing on that side of the balance sheet.

A chartered accountant can deal with figures and, by virtue of his training, can analyse and break down various figures presented to him. But it takes a very experienced type of cost accountant to go after that particular portion of any industry's balance sheet which deals with costs, because when, by a measure like this, one tries to stand between the manufacturer and the consumer, the ultimate cost to the consumer must bear a realistic relation to the cost to the producer. I do not suggest to the Minister that it is easy to find the ideal blend for this commission. I am sure that we can say that the Minister will certainly make an effort to get the best possible type of personnel. They will, however, have to have a very diversified outlook and they will have to be drawn from a pool of very widely experienced people.

The whole success or failure of this Bill turns, firstly, on the actual personnel that will make up the commission and, secondly, their capacity for work, because it is inevitable that a good many businesses and groups of businesses will be under review and unless that review can be initiated and concluded within a reasonable time whatever good might ensure from this measure will be lost because various adjustments can be made which would clog the wheels of the investigating machinery. Therefore, when the Minister is considering the personnel of the commission he will have to look for a combination of breadth of vision, business capacity and energy, because it is essential and, I would say, vital to the success of this Bill that the commission should be one with practically an unlimited capacity for work and be permeated by dynamic energy in its personnel.

One wonders where the border line between this type of legislation and, shall I say, punitive legislation lies. It has been suggested that the Bill should be enlarged to cover further facets. I do not completely subscribe to that idea. If we take the Bill as presented to us and can get it working successfully within the limits designed here, I feel that that experience might be useful to this House in enabling it to design legislation subsequently that would be equitable.

I am not enamoured with the methods devised in this Bill, but I am prepared to give them a chance. I am prepared to view reasonably the progress that might be achieved under the Bill, but I have very decided views with regard to the machinery of investigation, and that is where possibly the Minister and I will be violently at issue. I have often contended in this House that we have destroyed the Garda force by making them the agents of too many Departments, by spreading out their duties into fields of endeavour for which they were never trained and for which the force was never designed.

I say to the Minister that so far as this legislation envisages the use of Garda officers in certain types of investigation he should forget that altogether. That will suffer from either of two defects, either a member of the force, for very justifiable reasons, will not take an awful lot of interest or, if he does, you will inevitably start off an investigation with the person whom the Guard is interviewing having a wrong slant on the nature of the investigation. We have come to accept the members of the Garda as part of the machinery of the Department of Justice, the protectors of the normal citizen in his rights before the law. We have come to regard them as part and parcel of the administration of law and justice, and it is unfair and inimical to the very purpose of this Bill that they should be used as the agents of investigation for this commission.

There has been much criticism of the American idea as we know it in regard to the anti-trust laws and the interpretation by the courts of these anti-trust laws certainly would not encourage the establishment of that type of machinery. But there is one part of the machinery used in American trade investigations which we might copy and that is the use of the special investigator. Under this Bill we envisage an authorised officer and we enlarge that definition to cover a member of the Garda.

I would urge upon the Minister to have a special type of investigator attached either to his Department or to some section of it rather than a permanent member of the force already established. These special investigators in America, taking them by and large, have been able to do an effective job of investigation, particularly in the main food rings and the main packing houses of America. I am convinced that if this envisaged machinery, the commission, its investigation and inquiry, is to work, it will have to be operated in the main by highly skilled technicians. When costings, prices, etc., are involved, the investigation, if it is to be successful must be put in the hands of experts in their own field. You will need somebody of wider technical experience than the Minister seems to envisage at the moment. This commission, ranging over a wide field as it will, must have at its disposal special investigators of particularly high technical skill in the departments, avocations or industries which they may be called upon to investigate.

Like nearly every member of the House I am perfectly aware that there is a twofold difficulty to be met by this legislation. Consciously or unconsciously, deliberately or without intent, there is no doubt that State Departments and semi-State companies have themselves by virtue of statutory powers considerably aggravated the situation where restrictions or restrictive practices are concerned. Deputy Cosgrave referred here to the inevitable consequences of the quota system. It must of its very nature, when applied to an industry or group of industries, create certain restrictive anomalies. These restrictions become even more crushing when the Department must arbitrarily decide upon some year as a basis for the quota, and exclude new entries or expansions.

I heard Deputy Dr. Browne, in his queer rambling, tortured way, levying accusations with regard to tariffs and quotas against the Party of which I am a member. I have always, without fear or favour, believed in our Irish industry so long as it conformed to the three F's: Fair conditions for the workers, fair profits for the industrialist and a fair article at a fair price for the consumer. In so far as quotas, quantitative restrictions and tariffs are an aid to an Irish industry which gives that type of service to the Irish consumer, I have always been actively in favour of them. It is not an easy problem. It is one of the most vexed and difficult problems with which the Department must deal because it is inevitable when a line is drawn that cases of tremendous hard luck and hardship come just outside the line and that then all the various influences which the victim can bring to bear come down together on the heads of the Department. Some realistic equitable way must be designed to operate quota restrictions or tariff protections so as to ensure that they will not defeat their real purpose.

That is a facet of the problem which I believe is not covered by this Bill, and I believe that if that facet is not covered, we are not coming to grips with some of the main issues at all. I do not want anybody to get the idea that, in saying that, I am offering gratuitous criticism. I am not. I am candidly prepared to admit that, in operating the archaic type of machinery it is operating, the Department has made a reasonable effort to be fair and that where cruelties or hardships have arisen it has not been because of personalities or individuals, but because of the year taken as the basis of the quota calculation. Indeed, I may say honestly that, where reasonable representation has been made and where gross hardship has been established, one has found the Department anxious to make that mechanism sufficiently flexible to help those on whom hardship has unwittingly been imposed.

This is a facet and a serious facet of the problem of restrictive practices, however, which I do not believe the Bill envisages at all. We have heard rumours and counter-rumours of what might happen to private transport. We have heard rumours of curtailment, of a limit to the operations of certain types of vehicle. Therefore the establishment of a semi-State concern creates a restriction for which no ring, no trade is responsible but this House. That type of thing must be covered and captured by a Bill of this nature. It may well be that in the light of to-day's unprecedented happening many of these rumours will die a sudden death, but still we must remember that while we are anxious to get rid of restrictive practices we in this House may ourselves unconsciously by the establishment of State or semi-State companies create restrictions. That is where the Tánaiste and I join issue on this Bill. I am accepting the principle of the Bill. I have advocated it repeatedly in this House but I do not think there is anything in this Bill which will capture that serious side of the problem.

We have heard various accusations levelled against groups in this House. My recollection is that one of the groups that came in for some of the most vituperative criticism were the baker-millers. I am not going to make any pronouncement on the merits or demerits of the case made against those people but I do think that the accusations having been made, the activities of these people, dealing as they do with one of the most essential commodities of the community, should certainly be open to a very early review, bearing in mind this fact, that if there is nothing there to hide, then the investigation under this mechanism can cause no fear.

I neglected to say, as I should have said, that the consumer public in this country is labouring at the moment under an excessive burden of cost for one article of general use and of general necessity for which the Government is absolutely responsible due to the continuation of the set-up of Tea Importers, Limited. That is a restrictive practice that has allowed the consumer in this country to be mulcted to an extent of shillings per lb. on tea with the acquiescence of this House or, might I say, by the will of the majority of this House. We here, on the Second Reading of a Bill that we have all been pressing for, must take another look at ourselves to test the sincerity of our own belief in this measure when we know—and it is admitted on all sides of the House—that it would be possible to get tea of a greater variety at an infinitely lower price than at present obtains but for the fact that we are maintaining by an Act or instrument of this House an organisation that is defeating that purpose.

This Bill is broad enough in many ways, and its design is wide enough to enable large-scale investigations to be carried out, but the whole effect and the whole benefit of the measure will be lost unless the very kernel and essence of the Bill is going to be expedition. We have reason to believe from observations by Deputies on all sides of the House that there are certian trades in which there is great restriction. We saw it in certain furores that arose around the country in connection with petrol distribution. I am informed that there are many other groups of industries as wealthy and as powerful as the oil and petrol groups that need examination.

Mr. MacBride

The millers, for instance.

Mr. S. Collins

Deputy MacBride must not have been here when I referred to the millers.

Mr. Briscoe

I thought he said "the lawyers".

Mr. MacBride

What about the salami sausage manufacture?

Mr. Briscoe

The lawyer has not learned the essence of the courtesy of his own profession. The matter is still sub judice.

An Ceann Comhairle

What about a little order?

Mr. S. Collins

I must inevitably salaam to the Chair. I feel quite genuinely that this Bill is a step in the right direction. I am not going to be either niggardly or equivocal about my belief in the principle that it enshrines. I have endeavoured to tell the House in a realistic way where I think the Bill will fall down. I believe that the Bill in its technical detail has a few defects. One of the main defects is that it envisages temporary appointments for certain types of investigation or, should I say, the temporary selection of somebody to deal with a particular facet in an investigation. That does not give the right type of solidarity or the right type of entity to the commission. A bald statement that the Minister may remove a member of the commission is a dangerous power to give him. It might never happen—it does not matter what Minister might be in charge of Industry and Commerce—that a man would be removed for an improper motive, but I do think that where we are going to invite, I am sure, people of responsibility, of standing and of broad business experience to become members of the commission, at least there should not be any arbitrary power of removal of that person in the hands of the Minister. It inevitably leads to the suspicion in the public mind that the Minister has a direct control in an undesirable way over that commission. The commission itself would have more confidence in itself and more belief in its own capacity if that arbitrary power were not there.

I do not intend to delay the House much longer but I do believe that the introduction of this legislation is overdue. I am prepared to take the Tánaiste on trust when he says he feels this legislation is a start and that experience may give us the right knowledge with which to improve on it. As I said in opening, I am prepared to give this Bill that chance. I do not believe, as Deputy Dr. Browne believes, that this Bill is to be the signal of the last gesture to private enterprise. God forbid that the hidden ideologies of the thwarted Deputy Dr. Browne were ever to become a reality in Ireland. I do not believe there is any person in this House, with the possible exception of the thwarted Deputy himself who wants to see the elimination of decent private enterprise in this State.

The old maxim of equity was "let him who seeks equity come with clean hands." I say to private enterprise in this country: "Where he has clean hands, no industrialist or businessman, big or small, in any part of this State has anything to fear from this measure." If he has not clean hands, he does not merit the sympathy or olagonings of anybody in this House.

Restrictive practices are stigmas of a form of government that we in Ireland do not believe in. I welcome the introduction of this legislation, ensuring, as it does, on the one hand, fair treatment for consumer and industrialist under the technique envisaged and, on the other hand, that the socialism or communism or whatever kind of "ism" that is at the back of Deputy Dr. Noel Browne's mind will be thoroughly and manfully fought against by all in this House save by the thwarted Doctor Deputy himself.

I hope this Bill will achieve a better relationship between industrialist and consumer. Honesty on the part of both of these sections may lead to a better understanding of the difficulties that exist and in many cases may explode the myth of gross, excessive profits. If gross excessive profits have been made, I hope that industrialists who have battened on the people will be treated with all the ruthlessness that this House would desire, with scant mercy and swift action.

Mr. Norton

The very fact that we have no legislation dealing with the general problem of restrictive practices would in the ordinary course be a substantial reason why the House should welcome a Bill dealing with this problem. That there is need for the Bill is unquestioned. That has already been acknowledged by speakers from all Parties in this House. It goes without saying, therefore, that the general principle of the Bill is approved by the House and, indeed, is welcomed by the Labour Party.

I do not think that even the most enthusiastic advocates of the Bill will attempt to claim for it that it will prove to be a remedy for all the problems which arise in the course of complex trading conditions as we know them to-day.

We are living in an age when personal proprietorship in industry is rapidly disappearing. It has disappeared over whole ranges of the world. It has disappeared in many cases where the State has become owner. Even in countries which have not totalitarian régimes the ordinary private owner of industry who had a social conscience towards his workers or the community is being replaced now by a type of financial capitalism in which persons invest their money in an industry, not for the purpose of producing a particular class of goods for the benefit of the community but for the purpose of producing goods which they believe will yield them a substantial dividend.

Thus you get to-day in industry an impersonal type of proprietorship, which one day makes a man, because he holds railway shares, the employer of railwaymen, which next day makes him an employer of natives on a rubber plantation because he has changed his railway shares into rubber shares and which makes him, the following day, the employer of tin miners in a part of the world unknown to him because he thinks tin shares will produce better dividends than rubber shares.

Where you are dealing with that class of person and with such circumstances, you have to recognise that it is the profit motive and only the profit motive that operates to induce those people to move their money. They move it wherever the dividends are best, and if it is a question of investing money in a factory for the purpose of producing cheap boots and shoes for young children or needy people, which may pay a dividend of 5 per cent. and which is nationally beneficial, and investing it in a rubber plantation or a tin mine, and getting 20 per cent., the investor's money will follow the dividends. Social needs at home may be neglected while his money is invested at the other end of the earth where the dividends are better.

He can do all that under the present and growing method of impersonal proprietorship in industry, which in very large measure has transformed personal ownership of industry as we knew it 50 years ago to the financial capitalism which now takes the form of the limited company.

It is because there is not that personal type of ownership with which was associated an obligation on producers to act in the public good because of individual moral responsibility, that it is more than ever necessary for the State, acting for the community, to survey closely and regularly the activities of companies of that kind.

I do not say that any substantial number of these companies in this country are concerned in a conspiracy to defraud the public or to act unreasonably in respect of the community as a whole. The generality of these companies do business in a decent and reasonable way. Self-criticism is a valuable safeguard and, where that is not indulged in by the persons in a particular industry, as a check on their rapacity or on their general tendencies, it is highly desirable that the State should act as the investigator in any case where it is shown that pursuit of present practices is likely to reflect adversely on the public good.

I think, therefore, that there is everything to be said for legislation which will permit the State to examine restrictive practices wherever the need for that examination is shown. It is in that connection that a Bill of this kind can be valuable, although he would be a brave man who at this stage would say that a Bill of this kind will provide a remedy for all the difficulties which will arise from time to time.

The Bill is an experiment, and its success will depend not so much on the machinery—to which Deputy Collins attached a lot of importance— as on the administration behind it. Given elasticity, the Bill can fit most situations and is capable of being adapted to meet such situations; but it is not the machinery which will determine its ultimate value: it is the spirit behind it, the approach to these problems by the commission, the approach by the Minister and his reactions to recommendations and the general desire of the trading community to recognise that, in the face of this legislation, there is a moral responsibility on them so to order their own business as to conform to reasonable procedure and protocol in the matter of trading practices.

The Minister, in his speech, did not reveal any serious difficulties which cry out for immediate investigation, although he adverted in a general way to practices which he thought might be brought under survey by the commission. I am with the Minister very strongly in so far as he intends this Restrictive Practices Bill to deal with rings or cartels. While I do not propose to delay the House to-night on anything like a comprehensive survey of some of these, there is one ring to which I would like to direct special attention because of the fact that it is dealing with a commodity which enters to a very intimate degree into that most beneficial of all our national activities, the provision of decent houses for our people. I refer to the timber ring.

In 1949 the value of building work done in this country was £19,500,000. The cost of the material used was £7,600,000. Of that material so used, timber and joinery cost £1,500,000. In 1950 the relative figures were: value of the building work done, £22,000,000 odd; cost of the materials used, £8,800,000; and the value of the timber and joinery, £1,970,000. It will be seen that we are using for building work alone almost £2,000,000 worth of timber each year. It is an admitted fact that building and construction use more timber than any other single activity. Most of it is imported. The timber trade, in this country in particular, is supported mainly by public money—by local housing authorities and by different Departments, for public works of one kind or another. For that reason, the public have a special right to know how the timber trade is organised and how the prices are arrived at. It is fortunate for the timber trade that the public authorities are such good and such sustaining customers. But for them the timber trade and other building materials trades and the building industry generally would long ago have suffered a collapse.

According to the Federation of Builders, Contractors and Allied Employers, in a statement made before the Labour Court, private building is depressed and builders are going into bankruptcy, because costs, the employers say, are excessively high. Among those costs is the cost of materials, including the biggest cost of all—imported timber. Let us look at the question of the prices of imported timber, on which we depend so much. The price is controlled in this country by a Maximum Prices Order. That is not so in the Six Counties or Great Britain. Here the prices are fixed as maximum prices and they have, in practice and through the operation of a trade ring or series of trade rings, become virtually minimum prices. The last Order was made in November of last year, when the world prices of timber were much higher than they are to-day. Nevertheless, the maximum prices fixed a year ago for resale have not been reduced. Our timber prices are the highest prices that have ever been permitted here—and all that in the face of a substantial fall in the price of timber imported into this country.

Let us trace it still further. Under the Order made in November, 1951, the lowest of the maximum prices, that for imported white word, was £180 15s. a standard of 270 cubic feet and £204 5s. a standard for another type knows as red wood 7 inches wide. Notice how the prices have progressively increased under these Orders. I do not make any charge against the Government and I do not want to make political capital out of it. I want it investigated and the facts show that investigation is urgently needed. What ever figures or dates I quote have no reference to any Government, living or dead. I am concerned only with protecting the consumer. An Order was made in September, 1949, permitting corresponding maximum prices of £107 for white wood and £108 for red wood. In October, 1950, increases were permitted to £111 and to £115. In March, 1951, these prices went up under another Order to £133 and £142. A month later the price was raised to £158 and £181, and from those we came to the increases of November of last year and the prices which are ruling to-day, without any action being taken by those who benefit from them or by anybody else in the State to bring to the public notice the marked fall in world prices for timber since last November. In other words, we fixed the prices of timber in November of last year. The prices have dropped substantially since and our people who need timber are paying the same prices now as they paid when these prices were so high.

Mr. Hickey

Then we are told that there is no excess profits tax.

Mr. Norton

Let us see what has happened since November of last year in order to prove the change in price levels of imported timber. I understand that within the last few months softwood timber has been offered to Irish timber importers by Canadian, Swedish, Finnish and Russian producers, who are also called "shippers". The prices vary from £68 a standard in the case of Russian softwood to £74 a standard for Canadian spruce, and from £70 a standard to £85 a standard for Scandinavian softwood. These prices are c.i.f. Dublin, and are for what is known in the trade as the Petrograd standard, which is a standard of 165 cubic feet. That standard is used everywhere in the world as the standard measure for buying and resale. Here, for resale, the Irish trade use what is known as the Dublin standard of 270 cubic feet.

Translating recently quoted prices from Petrograd standards into Dublin standards we find that softwood imported at £85 per Petrograd standard would cost the importer just under £140 a Dublin standard. Softwood bought at £70 a Petrograd standard would cost a little less than £115 a Dublin standard. Softwood bought at £77 a Petrograd standard would cost £126 a Dublin standard, while that bought at £68 a Petrograd standard would cost about £111 a Dublin standard.

I think anyone who has an opportunity of making a note of these figures will see that they leave a very substantial profit for the timber importer who is selling timber at a minimum of £180 15s. a Dublin standard, notwithstanding the substantial fall in the price of imported timber since November of last year. Of course, all those who have been engaged in the import of the timber at these prices and selling them at substantially higher prices have been doing very well, as you will see, because every thrifty man and woman wants to try and get a house built either by the local authority or by their own efforts. The substantial profits which are being made by the timber importers are being made as a result of the natural human desire on the part of Christian people to get a home for themselves and all that a decent home means for Christian people.

Let us see how timber importers operate because this is nearly as interesting as the other matter. In Dublin timber importers consist of about six or seven firms who have called themselves the Irish Timber Importers' Trade Association. There are a few firms in the South who form the South of Ireland Timber Importers' Association. There are a few more in the West who form the West of Ireland Timber Importers' Association.

These three bodies work very closely together, particularly in maintaining prices and deciding who shall, and more particularly, who shall not be admitted to the trade in any shape or form in Ireland. All these three associations form probably the most restrictive ring that is to be found in any trade in this country. No merchant who wishes to sell softwood in Ireland can obtain it from these importers unless they choose to recognise him. Unless this ring chooses to recognise him they will not serve him.

The number of recognised merchants is extremely limited and even their trading terms are fixed by the importers so that you have got to get recognised in order to buy. When they have recognised you and let you buy they fix your terms in order to permit you to carry on. If an Irish firm seeks to go outside the Irish timber importers' ring to buy softwood direct from the shippers abroad he comes up against more and this time foreign rings which fortify the Irish Timber Importers' ring. Here is how that works.

The producers of softwood or the "shippers" as they are called form themselves into a ring which refuses to sell to any but recognised importers in this country. Between the two rings there is another ring, the recognised agents' ring. There is a place for him too. Most of the agents through whom the Irish importers' ring works are British agents. In order to enjoy the protection from which they profit so handsomely the Irish timber importers are members of another ring known as the British Timber Trades Federation.

Unless an Irish firm joins the British federation neither the recognised agents nor the shippers will supply them with softwood. If any other Irish firm save those in the Irish ring applies to join the federation, a deputation from the Irish ring immediately leaves for London and the application is turned down at the instigation of the Irish ring. All along the line you have got these rings but that is not the end of the business.

There are also agreements with shipping companies who make special arrangements for members of the Irish rings and deny similar arrangements to Irish firms who are not members of the ring. If you can manage to wade through the whole lot you will find yourselves with a floating battleship known as shipping companies, and if you wade through the rest they will not transport the stuff because they have an arrangement with the others by which they give them special rates and may not take yours at all.

However, despite the existence of this rather remarkable and certainly well-sewn-up international organisation, it is a fact that, at the present time, small quantities of softwood are being imported into Ireland by one or two firms outside the ring. They have been offered at prices well below those fixed by the Maximum Prices Order made last November so that a couple of firms outside the ring, notwithstanding the Maximum Prices Order, which is the minimum price order, are selling substantially below the price fixed by the timber importers' ring.

Of course, you may be sure that the importers' ring are taking steps to ensure that the quantity of softwood that gets into the hands of their competitors will be very little. They have got considerable influence with the exporters in the producing countries and with the shipping companies that export the goods. I want to put it to the House that an early and searching investigation into the operation and the effects of these Irish and international timber rings is desirable from every standpoint in the public interest.

The public authorities are the biggest customers of the Irish ring. The excessive profits which have been made by the shippers' ring have even embarrassed Governments. I understand that even the Swedish Government inquired whether the producers of Swedish softwood could not sell direct to the Irish Government and other public authorities instead of passing it through this group of firms, every one of whom gets a substantial rake-off which, in the long run, is paid for by the Irish consumer in the form of a tenant of a house anywhere in urban or rural Ireland.

Last year we imported sawn softwood to the extent of £5,000,000. In 1950, we imported softwood to the extent of almost £4,000,000, and that did not include certain other types of wood as well. I suggest that the quantity of wood imported and the value of the wood imported is so great, and its use so essential in the building of Irish houses that we ought not to delay another minute in undertaking an inquiry into the operations of this timber ring, so as to make sure that that timber ring is not, with our consent and because of our apathy or inertia, permitted to rake off an excessively high price at the expense of the people of this country, who are doing their best to get houses for themselves and to pay the high rents being charged, in many cases because of the heavy demand being made on them in respect of imported timber.

I suggest that there is clear evidence to justify an investigation into the operations of the timber importers in this country, and we ought to know, and to know early, why, in the face of a steep fall in the price of imported timbers, those importing timber are still being allowed to carry on on the basis of a Maximum Price Order fixed in November, 1951, when the price of imported timber was substantially higher than it is to-day, and why they are permitted to do that, in face of the fact that certain firms not in the ring are able to import and resell timber at a substantially lower price than that charged by the timber importers' ring.

So far as this Bill gets after the rings, the rings which appear to have no social consciousness and to be quite unconcerned as to how they unscrupulously exploit people, I am with the Minister, as I am sure, the House will be. Wherever that kind of evil manifests itself, there ought to be wholehearted enthusiasm, as I am sure there is, for eradicating practices which allow people of that kind to rake off exorbitant profits on an essential material. When one asks oneself what the timber importer does, one must bear in mind that he does not produce the wood.

What does he contribute to the production of the wood? As a member of a ring, he simply buys his timber from and through other rings abroad. It is lifted on to the dock side and maybe carted to his yard and it is then sold. He has added nothing to it, nor to the world's or this country's productive wealth in the matter of timber; but yet it is the most lucrative occupation to-day. There is more than £5,000,000 worth of timber coming in through that group of rings, a closed borough, and our people are paying an exorbitant price for timber to-day which they should not be asked to pay.

I want to pass now to some other aspects of the Bill. Reference has been made to trade associations and to the possibility of their indulging in restrictive practices. If they do, this Bill provides machinery for dealing with such a situation, but I must say that I do not think trade associations of themselves are objectionable. I think it is perfectly legitimate for traders in a particular line of business to come together and to do what is best in their own interests and in the public interest so to regulate the trade as to eliminate unfair practices, to give a good service and to expect that those in the trade concerned conform to certain high standards of service to the people.

For instance, it is perfectly legitimate for a trade organisation to come together and say that they are opposed to a shopkeeper opening his shop at 8 o'clock in the morning and keeping it open until 11 o'clock at night. Everybody knows that, where that happens, there is a most unscrupulous exploitation of labour and an abuse of family labour as well. You could never establish or maintain decent conditions in a trade if some people were allowed to open at 8 o'clock in the morning and remain open till 11 o'clock at night and to do that on Saturday and every other day of the week, as well as opening on Sunday morning. That kind of trading would, of course, undermine any effort to establish decent conditions in any trade.

It is also legitimate enough for a trade association to try to protect its members against that kind of cut-throat and unfair competition which could depress any industry, trade or service if it were permitted to go unchallenged, because those who wanted to preserve decent standards were prohibited from taking steps in their own defence. In so far as trade associations endeavour to eliminate cut-throat competition of that kind, there is nothing objectionable that I see from the point of view of any reasonable activities in that direction.

I have never found a cut-throat individual in business who was willing to keep his shop open for 12 or 14 hours a day who proved himself to be a benefactor to anybody, because not only does he give the public very little of what he claims to give them, but his business is carried on usually by the most unscrupulous exploitation of young, unprotesting girls and boys who are dragooned into working long hours, because, in many cases, they are afraid to go back to the homes they have left, probably in the country. Anything that eliminates that kind of trading has a good deal to commend it. I certainly have no use for it, and I never saw a healthy trade built on pedlar's methods of that kind.

We, in this country, for the past 30 years, have been pursuing a policy of imposing tariffs to help our industries, as well as quotas and quantitative restrictions. In all that field, we have necessarily built up a very complex mechanism. I want to put this on record again, though I have said it often enough already. I am in favour of using the tariff weapon, the quota weapon and the quantitative restriction weapon as a means of helping every Irish industry that shows evidence of being able to establish itself and develop itself for the purpose of supplying our own people with goods and providing employment in decent conditions for our people. I believe it is the only way in which we can ever establish an industrial arm in this country.

It is the only way we can maintain our secondary industries and we have to maintain these industries in the face of what may, at times, be the fierce competition of highly capitalised countries, of countries which have an industrial know-how far in excess of anything we have here or countries which, satisfied with a good and profitable market at home, may find it advantageous to export at almost cost price surplus commodities to this country at a level of import price which completely undermines the home manufacturer. We have to protect Irish industry against all these possibilities, but, having said that, we cannot just sit down in an armchair and say: "Fire away, boys. Off you go. Do the best you can. The public will stand behind you all the time."

Let us recognise this fact that, so far as this community is concerned, it has made more sacrifices for Irish industry than any other body in the country. The whole community of this country for the past 30 years has contented itself with a policy—and I agree with the policy—of paying a higher price for the home-produced article in a great many cases, a higher price, in fact, than that at which the article could have been purchased if it had been allowed in free of tariff. They are the Irish public who, tolerant though they may have been—and Heaven knows, they have had some bad shocks of late—are entitled to say that they should be protected against the possible rapacity of any of these people who want to engage in manufacture under conditions which disclose no discernible interest in the purchasing community. If you intend to have tariffs and quotas on the one hand the logical corollary is that there should be some system of inspection of the conditions under which commodities are produced and of the practices resorted to in a newly established industry. There must be an examination to ascertain to what extent a firm is utilising to the full the tariff for which the Irish consumer is paying and there must be a consistent and ever-present State urge that the new industry must not merely produce all it is capable of producing at a given moment but its target must be set ever higher in order to produce the full requirements of the home market at least and perhaps produce for export as well.

I do not think the Minister for Industry and Commerce would attempt to say that we have in fact applied supervision and inspection to all the industries which have benefited by tariffs at the expense of the public. I have discovered more particularly in recent speeches by the Minister a disposition on his part to tell manufacturers that they must be up and doing, that they must be efficient, that they must recognise that they are dependent on public goodwill to sustain them in business and that the Irish public must not be regarded as the permanent milch cow of the new manufacturer.

I am in favour of assisting every decent progressive Irish manufacturer to establish industry. I am in favour of helping him against foreign competition. I am in favour of aiding him in every possible way to reach the highest target attainable, but I do not think it is unreasonable at the same time to say to him: "If for a long period of years the community has assisted you by paying more than it need have paid for the goods you produce the public are now entitled to protection and they are entitled to a guarantee from the State that their welfare will be effectively looked after because you have got on your feet." Of course we have not done that. We have been satisfied very largely to pass a tariff. At intervals when a higher tariff was looked for we looked at the conditions in the industry. There has been no systematic examination of the matter and nobody would pretend that there ever was. There has been a fitful advertence to the question of what a particular industry is doing and a sporadic investigation of how that industry is carrying on. The result is that we have no coherent coordinated plan for regular inspection of our industries in order to ensure, first of all, that they are developing to the fullest possible extent their industrial potential on the one hand, and, on the other hand, that they are not in their new opulence resorting to trade practices of a restrictive character to the detriment of the community.

If this Bill helps to bring that about and if it helps to awaken interest in the desirability of doing that, that is just one other reason why it should commend itself to the House. There is urgent need to do that, and we will never have a really healthy industrial arm until the State makes it clear on behalf of the community that it expects those who are running our industries to run them efficiently, and to produce the best possible goods under the best possible conditions, and that, given that, the Irish consuming public, adequately protected, will assure them in return a home market, which is the best and most stable market for them in the world to-day.

I want to deal now with this proposed commission. I think it is inevitable that there must be a commission to deal with the matters referred to in this Bill. It is not clear from the Bill as to whether this will be a whole-time commission. It is not clear as to whether there will be a whole-time chairman and part-time members, or whether both the chairman and the members will be part-time or whole-time. We want some clarification on that point from the Minister. If it is a part-time commission with a whole-time chairman the problem of investigating restrictive practices will become secondary in the minds of the part-time personnel of the commission. Frankly, I would prefer to see a whole-time commission. When we talk of restrictive practices and our desire to curb them we expect to see a corresponding benefit to the community in the form of greater production, and in most cases cheaper production.

I see between this Bill and the commission which will be established under it and the Prices Commission a very distinct and obvious nexus. It seems to me that the commission contemplated here might in some way be tied in with the Prices Commission. One must ascertain not only whether and to what extent restrictive practices are operative, but one must also ascertain to what extent these practices operate to keep prices at a level higher than these prices need be. I can see in the investigation into restrictive practices the commission coming to a point in their investigations in which the question arises as to what saving could be effected to the community if certain practices were abandoned, and it is at that juncture that there is need for tying in the Prices Commission with this restrictive practices commission, so that both of them will operate jointly either through this Bill or in any other way the Minister cares to contemplate. It is difficult to deal with these matters in two separate and watertight compartments, and I think there is a close relationship between them.

I would like the Minister to examine that aspect of the matter and see whether it is possible to tie these two commissions together and make them a whole-time commission charged with public investigations not only into restrictive practices but into price increases or demands for price increases irrespective of whether or not they are based on the existence of restrictive practices in any particular trade or industry.

So far as I can judge from this Bill the consumer does not appear to have any right to approach the commission. Am I right in that?

Mr. Lemass

I could not give a one-word answer to that question.

Mr. Norton

It is perfectly clear from the Bill that he is not the fellow who will get into the commission first. He may by devious paths arrive at the door and knock but it is not even certain then that he will get in. Under the Bill as it stands the consumer cannot get into the commission. Yet, he is the victim of restrictive practices and he might very well be the most important witness in the matter of disclosing the existence of restrictive practices. The commission should be open to every consumer who wants to make a case. It could demand that a statement should be made in writing and decide on that statement whether there is merit or substance in the complaint. It need not waste time on purely frivolous complaints. If the complainant, however, makes a good case he ought to be encouraged to come forward so as to make the commission, which will not be skilled in restrictive practices at the outset, aware of what is happening in order that a corrective can be applied. I would like to see these two bodies tied together with wide powers in relation to prices and restrictive practices. A marriage of that kind will depend for its success on a public examination of all questions of restrictive practices and of all demands for higher prices in the same way as the ordinary workers have to go through the Labour Court for a public hearing in order to establish their claim for an increase in wages. If the ordinary worker has to do that through the sometime imperfect organisation of a trade union, why should not the substantial ring or cartel be required to undergo the same public examination with the searchlight of public opinion beamed upon them, and why should they not be compelled to justify before the community their demand for increased prices or their restrictive practices?

Deputy Dillon spoke on this Bill. He made some references to the fact that trade unions are not covered by the Bill. I will give Deputy Dillon the credit that I think he does not know all the difficulties that have to be confronted once he attempts to tread that road. Even if I admitted that there are practices to be adjusted, the worst possible way to do it would be to steam-roll a Bill through this House. I think that anybody who takes the slightest trouble to investigate the activities of trade unions will find that, in general, they behave in a reasonable and rational way. Many of the people who negotiate on behalf of trade unions have been skilled in that business for a long time. Very often they are people well versed in public questions and principally in the problems of the workers for whom they cater. It may be that, at times and in certain limited cases, a union may appear to impose a certain amount of restriction of one kind or another which, at first glance, to those who do not know the facts, seems to be objectionable. What really happens in most of those instances, if they are investigated, is that just as this Restrictive Trade Practices Bill is intended not for the mass of producers and manufacturers but for the small hard core who have no social conscience, so also have the trade unions been forced in certain instances and in certain ways to tighten their rules in order to counteract the activities of unscrupulous people with whom they have to deal and who could not be relied upon to give a fair deal if these restrictions were not imposed.

I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is probably the only non-trade union member of this House who has long experience of the trade union movement, will be the first to admit that trade unions are run efficiently, that their standard of conduct is high and that, in general, they behave in a reasonable and rational way in all classes of negotiations. If they are peculiar, it occurs only here and there. An examination will show that in sheer self defence the unions were compelled to tighten screws here and there. They were compelled to do so, not for the purpose of dealing with the decent type of employer or the man who will accept not only the letter but the spirit of an agreement, but in order to ensure that the cunning, crafty little fellow who wants to wriggle out of his obligations and who is guilty of such objectionable practices even after signing an agreement will not be allowed to do so. That is the origin of it all. It may be that, in other fields, the need in 1952 for a modification of practices which grew out of an entirely different set of circumstances arises. If that is so, the worst possible way to attempt a solution of these problems is to do so by legislation. If there are these difficulties the way to tackle the problem is to find them. We have the Congress of Irish Unions and the Trade Union Congress. You can say to them: "There they are. We are putting it to you as reasonable people to remedy whatever it is felt calls for remedy." Frankly, I confess that if the trade unions are approached in that spirit they will reciprocate and meet whatever situation has to be met. The Minister has already—wisely, I think— taken that course in respect of another matter. I think it would be a bad mistake for the Minister to take Deputy Dillon's advice on this matter and attempt to deal with trade unions through the medium of this Bill. It would be a bad way to do it and it would be unsuccessful. It would stir up immense hostility in a set of circumstances where co-operation and understanding are so much to be desired and calculated to give such satisfactory results. As I said, I prefer to think that Deputy Dillon had not studied the difficulties when he made the observations to which I have referred. When he has had an opportunity of reading my reply. I hope he will reflect on the situation and realise that the problem is one that can best be dealt with not by legislation but by understanding between the trade unions which, I am sure, desire to find a solution of whatever difficulties exist.

I want now to refer to the comments made about me by Deputy Dr. Browne this afternoon and also about my colleagues in the inter-Party Government. We had nothing, of course, to do with this Bill nor are we mentioned in the Bill, but, as is so typical of him, Deputy Dr. Browne found opportunities this afternoon for referring to me and to colleagues of mine in the inter-Party Government and to our general attitude as Ministers and ex-Ministers. I, of course, can see the reason for these observations by Deputy Dr. Browne. He is now engaged in a systematic campaign of giving bail to this Government for his future good behaviour. This is his clear line of policy.

Captain Cowan

Do not think you can spoil a good speech.

Mr. Norton

I am going to defend myself against snake-like tactics in this House. This evening we got an example of it from Deputy Dr. Browne, who slandered the colleagues with whom he worked for three and a half years.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair would not allow Deputy Dr. Browne or anybody else to slander anybody in this House.

Mr. Norton

May I put this to the Chair? You, Sir, were in the Chair this afternoon when the statements I refer to were made by Deputy Dr. Browne. He went so far that, at one stage, you had to tell him that what he was saying had nothing to do with the Bill. However, he had said it before then and had got back to it again.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

So far as the Chair recollects, Deputy Dr. Browne's references to the Opposition were to their attitude towards this Bill. Any references he made were not personal references.

Mr. Sweetman

Sir, it could not possibly be taken otherwise.

Mr. Norton

Deputies in the House heard him.

Mr. Sweetman

I heard it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair also heard it.

Mr. Sweetman

I take liberty to differ with the Chair's interpretation.

Mr. Norton

If the Chair heard what Deputy Dr. Browne said, then the Chair must be on my side.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair wishes to point out that it would not allow Deputy Dr. Browne or any Deputy to slander anybody in the House.

Mr. Norton

I do not say that he slandered them personally. How could he? Who is he to do so? What he engaged in was political slander and political misrepresentation of his colleagues in the inter-Party Government with whom he worked for three and a half years—and never once during that time did he find anything wrong with them. That happened only when he had lost the confidence of his colleagues in the inter-Party Government.

Deputy Dr. Browne said here this afternoon, in the hearing of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, in a reference to banks and to the restriction of credit, that certain members of the Opposition should have done something about that matter when they had the power to do so. He went further and said that when he was a member of the last Government he made proposals to have the banking problems dealt with. If he did, neither I nor a single one of his colleagues ever heard of any propositions which he made. In fact if I have any comment to make on that, I know well why he did not make them; he never understood what the problem was and does not yet understand it. I do not want to travel over the same ground or enter into competition with Deputy Dr. Browne in his humbugging posture here, that he is the only one free-minded man and that nobody else in this country can be trusted. Deputy Dr. Browne in this debate and in every other debate than he can twist for his own purposes, has shown himself to be a miserable pedlar in the reputations of decent men and women whose reputations, may I say, do not require any certificate from Deputy Dr. Browne. (Interruptions.) I dismiss it by saying that his statements are just neurotic ravings reflecting the instability the Deputy has always shown in this House.

Mr. Briscoe

The Bill before us, which apparently has the acceptance of everybody in this House, has been approached in a variety of ways. I read with great care the speech of the Minister in proposing the Second Reading and I read also the speeches of those who followed him. It is quite clear that some people think that this Bill is introduced specifically to deal with industries which have been started in this country in recent years and which are protected by tariffs. Others, again, understand that it is intended to deal with restrictive trade practices by distributors as distinct from manufacturers. Many of those who have discussed it apparently do not seem to have examined the problem from the beginning to the end. There are two types or two sources of supply to the people of this country with which an attempt is being made to deal. There is the source of supply from outside our shores and the source of supply from inside. When we deal with the source of supply inside, from beginning to end it is obvious that we can legislate here to deal with those engaged in the production and distribution of the commodities concerned, but when we come to deal with the distribution in this country of goods produced outside, it will be much more difficult to operate the provisions of this Bill for the benefit of the public as is the intention. Therefore, when we come to consider this matter we immediately begin to think of the commission which has to be set up.

I have heard members of the House comment on that matter and offer suggestions as to how the personnel should be selected and what the commission should be composed of. It is quite obvious from the speech which we heard from Deputy Collins—a good speech in its way, a friendly speech welcoming the Bill—that he has completely forgotten that the commission the Bill seeks to set up is a commission to control restrictive trade practices and not purely a body to consider prices and profits. We have already two bodies in the country dealing with that matter.

I was glad that Deputy Norton saw that point. You have a body or two bodies experienced in examining costings. We have here a Bill to deal with restrictive trade practices, in regard to the control of which up to the present we have not much experience, and rather than selecting accountants or cost accountants as the personnel of that body, I would say that there should be a liaison, and a very close liaison, between the body to be set up by this Bill and those already in existence which have the power of dealing with costings.

Restrictive trade practices apply to a number of organisations or concerns. It may seem strange to people to hear that the manufacturer in this country in many cases is the greatest victim of restrictive trade practices.

Mr. Davin

Hear, hear!

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Davin gives a chuckle.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

No, no He said "hear, hear". You are always suspecting Deputy Davin.

Mr. Briscoe

I am in the habit of suspecting him. He is afraid that I will make the suggestion to-night that was adopted by Córas Iompair Éireann at one time to stop buses coming in from Dún Laoghaire and then protest about it. There are industries in this country which are the victim of trade rings. There are industries which make specialised articles distributed in certain types of retail shops, distributed to these retail shops and to a limited number of wholesalers in that particular branch, and if the manufacturer wants to reduce the margin of profit either to the wholesaler or to the retailer or to both, the whole gamut of the organisation can put him out of business by saying: "We shall not sell your goods unless we get this margin of profit." I am sure Deputy Sweetman knows what I am talking about.

Mr. Sweetman

That is exactly the type of case of which Deputy Morrissey gave us a concrete example.

Mr. Briscoe

I am relating that to the attacks on manufacturers who up to the present have been castigated as profiteers, as persons who have no interest in life other than to suck the lifeblood out of the country and who, when there is no more blood left, get out of the country and out of business. People in industry are just as patriotic as people in the professions. They have to make a living and they have to trade according to certain rules. Unfortunately there are other groups who lay down rules for them but nobody will welcome this Bill more than the manufacturers in this country, the private manufacturers to whom Deputy Norton referred as distinct from what he called the impersonal type of investors in industry.

Again, when we consider the price of goods manufactured in this country to the consumer a certain amount of consideration has to be given to the cost of production. Deputy Norton spoke about the manufacturer abroad who sometimes can sell at cost or below cost goods exported to a country like this, thus creating unfair competition for the manufacturer at home. He omitted to say that there are countries producing goods which would, if there were not sufficient protection by tariffs, be able to produce goods for sale in this country at slave wages as compared with the wages paid here.

Mr. Norton

I include these amongst the unfair practices.

Mr. Briscoe

I am just quoting that as the type of practices which we have to examine. I was very pleased to hear Deputy Norton's attitude to-night vis-á-vis industry in this country and his full and complete recognition that we must have industries in this country. If we throw our minds back to the time before we got self-government here, it will be remembered that we had absolute destitution amongst many of our people. The idea behind industrialisation in the first instance and as far as it could be accomplished, was to give employment at home to our people, and, as quickly as we could, to abolish the destitution which had become chronic here over the centuries. It is true that, as a result of the protection and of the support of the people for Irish manufactured goods, our industries in many cases have prospered.

There is one group of people who, without doubt, will welcome this Bill. They are the industrialists, whether they are in a small way of business or not. I am thinking mainly of people who have money in a business of which they themselves are the directors, and are trying to produce an article for consumption at home. It has now been proved that we have industries whose products are recognised to be good, not only at home but abroad. Many of us were very proud to read in the newspapers recently a question which was asked in the British House of Commons suggesting that steps be taken to prohibit the import of shoes from Ireland into England. The suggestion was that the import of these Irish goods was damaging to the industries in England producing that class of goods. That would never have happened if the Irish product was not a good product, and one that was competitive in price.

There has been an attempt made throughout the industrial period in this country to control every aspect of industrial development. It has to be admitted, of course, that our Control of Manufactures Act regulates to a great extent, in conjunction with what is called conditions of employment, the employment of our people in industry. I do not think that organised labour has a fault to find with the employment side of Irish industry. It may, possibly, from time to time want to see conditions and the wages of workers improved. Nobody blames it for that. I want to say that, from my own experience in negotiations with trade unions, particularly where these were concerned with working conditions in small industries, I have always found the trade unions reasonable and fair with the maximum of consideration as far as the welfare of the industry as a whole was concerned.

I have heard all kinds of abuse, but, as I have said, I was pleased with the tone of the debate generally. Of course, we had Deputy Dillon intervening. I did not know, until I had heard the warning reply given by Deputy Norton to him, that he had dealt so severely with trade unionism. I did hear him, however, attack an industry that has proved its capacity from every possible angle of examination. Deputy Dillon not only attacked the industry itself but the personnel engaged in running it. We all know that one of the most vital items in the life of our nation is the possibility of building it up physically. To do that, we need cement. The establishment of the cement. The cement industry here, apart from the employment it gives and the benefit it has been to the national economy, has proved itself capable of delivering to this community, without a single complaint, an Irish article of quality that has made it possible for us to go ahead with our building programme without fear. From the point of view of price it is cheaper than the imported cement. Many of us are members of local authorities which are responsible for a good deal of building work, and if we had not this high-quality Irish cement we would have a good deal to worry about as regards our big building schemes. If the cement were bad we would have law cases and complaints of all kinds as well as recurring repairs. Those of us on local authorities have, however, no fears in our minds as regards the quality of our Irish cement. From the moment the cement leaves the factory until it leaves the consumer it is controlled from the point of view of the margin of profit that is allowed to those who deal in it.

I was glad that, to a great extent, Deputy Dockrell repudiated the attack which Deputy Dillon made on this very fine Irish company. As I have said previously in this House, I hope the Minister will soon be able to indicate to us that the final development of cement production will be reached when we get the additional factory working. The importation of cement will then have become a forgotten trade.

The gentlemen in the professions sometimes indulge in restrictive trade practices. They are not included in this Bill. I am referring to all professions and not to any particular one. Ordinary people who have to engage the services of those in the professions are aware that there are these restrictive practices. I am not attacking individuals, but the fact is that the members of those professions have to play the game according to the rules laid down by the members of their profession. There will be another occasion to discuss certain matters which I am not going into now because they are not concerned with the Bill.

Industries which have been set up under statute have been excluded from the Bill. I agree that certain of those concerns set up by statute do operate certain restrictions, and if they were not statutory institutions would be included in the Bill and so might find themselves brought before whatever tribunal is set up to explain some of their transactions. The attempt to survive by Córas Iompair Éireann causes its present management to make suggestions which, if given effect, would, without doubt, be a restriction on trade so far as many of our people are concerned.

I refer to their request to have certain types of lorries and delivery wagons confined to a maximum radius of something like 25 miles. That is something which we could say was an attempt at restriction.

Deputy Collins was quite correct when he said that this is not the first time he referred to restrictive trade practices. I remember when I was in Opposition and he was on this side of the House that on many occasions he put down questions to the then Minister for Industry and Commerce asking when he would introduce a Bill to deal with this particular evil. We all have had complaints from time to time and the Minister has given us a list of matters which have come to his knowledge.

It is easy, however, to attack certain industries which are picked out but which people should know are very strictly controlled. I have heard the millers and bakers attacked from time to time with regard to the price of bread. It has been suggested that an unlimited amount of money is going into their pockets. During the recent political campaign I heard that a reference was made to the effect that as much money went into the millers' pockets in profits as was payed in wages to those engaged in the industry. Many years ago when I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee I questioned very closely the whole set-up under which the millers were operating and I found that they were limited to a maximum net profit related to their investment. In those days that may have seemed reasonable, but in these days limiting a firm in some cases to a net profit of 6 per cent. per annum does not in fact allow them to put up any reserve for the replacement of machinery which to-day costs three or four times as much as it would have cost when these regulations were laid down.

Mr. MacBride

Have you looked at the millers' balance sheets?

Mr. Briscoe

I have told the House that when I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee I examined very closely with the other members of the committee the whole arrangement and I was satisfied that sufficient control was being exercised with regard to those engaged in that industry and their shareholders to prevent them from exploiting in any way the consumer or the working people in the industry. I am asked if I have seen their balance sheets. The Deputy can produce the balance sheets here and show where I am wrong. I say that we must have some sensible idea of what an industry is when we are discussing it and when we fix what should be regarded as a reasonable margin of profit. Machines, like human beings, do not last for ever, and provision has to be made for their replacement if the industry is to continue. In that connection, I hope that this body when set up will make a recommendation to the Revenue Commissioners to make some allowance in income-tax to companies for the purpose of replacing machinery and for the increased cost of replacement.

Deputy Collins referred to tea and said he was sure that the people were being exploited to the tune of at least 1/- per lb. I do not know whether Deputy Collins remembers that very recently in reply to a question in this House the Minister explained the position with regard to tea. He made this point very clear and it is well that we should try to understand it and see whether we agree with it or not, that since we have been drinking tea in this country our tea supply came from Mincing Lane and that when the world war broke out, notwithstanding the fact that we were permanent customers of the merchants in Mincing Lane, they were prepared to leave us almost without tea and that he would not see this country placed in the position again that it would not be able to obtain supplies of tea direct from the countries where it is produced. Although I do not say that this was included in what he said, I understood it to be in his mind, that at all times there would be a sufficient stock of tea kept in this country in order to give us time to think of what to do should an emergency arise.

Mr. Sweetman

I think he said exactly the reverse. He said that we were disposing of our stocks. I asked him a supplementary question and he said that.

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy and I have travelled abroad together and became very good friends and I know what the Deputy has in mind when he interjects. I heard the supplementary question to the Minister and his answer and what I have said is my understanding of his mind on this matter, with which I agree thoroughly.

Mr. Sweetman

That may be your understanding of his mind, but it was not what he said.

Mr. Briscoe

Perhaps the Deputy will read the Official Report of it.

Mr. Sweetman

If it was what he meant, it was not what he said.

Mr. Briscoe

That is the difference between us. Perhaps it it fair to say that I have known and respected the Minister for so many years that, no matter what he says, I know what he means.

Mr. Sweetman

I do not think he will accept that.

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy and I had a pleasant time when we were playing on the same team for our country. Like other Deputies, I have had many people contacting me about this Bill and I have seen the statements made by other people. I agree that there are a number of trade rings. Deputy Norton gave us details of a timber trade ring. To what extent the case he made is correct I do not know, but I am sure that it is one of the things which should be examined. I do not know whether it applies here or not, but I read recently that in England an exposure was made of a scandalous set of circumstances which had become the practice in the building trade there, where builders got together and agreed that they would tender at different prices for the building of houses and would share in this sort of rotation and support each other by contributions if losses arose. I do not know to what extent that exists here, if it does exist.

I do not know whether my colleagues in Dublin Corporation will agree or disagree with me, but there does seem to be some understanding between builders because when we advertise for tenders for houses some of us sometimes become suspicious in that the tenders are very near each other, and we feel that the person who needs the business is the fellow who tenders lowest and gets the business. I do not know whether there is much in it, but that is a matter which probably also will be examined.

There is the question of builders' providers and their materials. Deputy Norton read out certain figures which showed that in the year 1949 anyway the cost of the timber in a house was one-twentieth, or approximately 5 per cent. I do not know to what extent a saving can be made by dealing with timber rings, but certainly there must be some other savings in order to get the cost of building down, if there are, in fact, unreasonable hidden profits all along the way between buying a piece of ground and handing the house over to its occupant.

Many of us—I suppose all of us— have had complaints from individuals who wanted to start in the garage business, and who wanted to get a petrol pump. This is also something which should be examined. The public will have to be protected against exploitation by rings, traders will have to be protected against rings, and manufacturers will have to be protected against rings, one from the other and all together. We must have complete examination and complete exposal so that people will know exactly where they stand.

I will be interested to hear the Minister on Section 3 of the Bill. It deals with the setting up of the rulemaking body which, of course, will not have any statutory powers, but, nevertheless, must make rules which are possible to carry out, which are fair and which will give the necessary protection. Any further steps which are needed will have to be stated under the Bill. I think that this arrangement will be good, but I would like to hear the Minister giving us some idea of how he will select this body, from whom they will be chosen, what sort of experience will be necessary, what sort of work they will have to do, and whether, if they find that there are, in fact, certain restrictive practices which are not in the public interest, but for which they cannot make a rule, he will then be able to make certain rules or whether he will have to deal with the matter by legislation. The main thing is that, since it is necessary to set up this body as soon as possible, it should be allowed to work in what might be called the exploratory stage for a reasonable period, and that it should report on its investigations, explaining what has been found, the difficulties to be met, how they can be met and, if they cannot be met, other suggestions. I would like the Minister to agree that a report will be issued by this body and that, after a reasonably fair period for them to examine the matter, get experience and make up their minds what should be done and how it should be done, the Minister should review the body and decide whether the personnel should be altered, added to or made permanent. He might think desirable some rotation of interests through this body so that at all times every interest in the country will find some means of expression. I do not suggest that they should be accountants or costing accountants. We have price control bodies both in the Department of Industry and Commerce and in the tribunal which is still in existence, and there should be close liaison between them all.

I have some misgivings about bringing the Gardaí into the business. To a certain extent I agree with Deputy Collins. If the Gardaí are to be at the beck and call of this body we are putting into their hands an instrument of power which they should not have. If there is need to call in the Guards I think that the body should report the matter in the first instance to the Department of Industry and Commerce and that that Department should refer it to the Department of Justice. I have a feeling that if Departments of State or their subsidiary bodies are in a position to order Guards into the privacy of people's homes or businesses we might easily tend to become a police State and I have a distinct objection to that. Great care should be taken. After all, the Guards, the police as a whole, have a certain training and they should be called in only to deal with criminal cases. Where you have cases of this kind which might be purely civil, however, the body should not have this power. They should be called in through another agency.

Mr. MacBride

Who could carry out the investigation ?

Mr. Briscoe

I agree with Deputy Collins that the persons to carry out investigations such as might be necessary as a result of setting up this body should not be Guards. In some cases you might need an accountant and in others you might need a lawyer who would understand an agreement between individuals and who could recognise whether it was a method invented by another lawyer to get around some particular rule. I know that lawyers have the right and privilege of designing ways and means to drive a carriage and four through every Act of Parliament ever made. That is their right and that is what they are paid for, but when a poor civilian attempts to do it he finds himself in Mountjoy.

For that reason you might need a person with an education and experience different from that of a Guard, a person used to dealing with problems in a different way. I would ask the Minister to explain the section more fully when we come to it on the Committee Stage. We all admit that this Bill is necessary. We all welcome it. We all want it to be a success, because success would mean a complete cancellation of restrictive trade practices, but at the same time we do not want our ordinary, decent fellow-citizens, in whatever county or city they may be, to be in fear of the Guards. The very fact of a Guard walking into a place in the country sets all the tongues wagging about what is going on. Even if he went in only to serve a summons for not having a tail lamp on a motor-car the gossips might conclude that at last the trader had been caught for a restrictive trade practice. I would like the Minister to give us further elucidation on that, as I certainly want to make my mind up on it. At the moment I do not like the idea.

Captain Cowan

From listening to the debate, I think one can say, as far as this House is concerned, that there is general agreement that there is a problem to be dealt with. We all know that over a period of the last four or five years many questions have been asked in the House and much pressure was brought to bear on the Minister's predecessor and on himself to introduce legislation to deal with it. The problem we have now to consider is whether this Bill is, in fact, the best method of dealing with the problem.

Trade in the ordinary way may be described as the lifeblood of a community. That presupposes that trade will be free in its operation and that it will not be controlled to the detriment of the general public by any particular section engaged in the trade. It is because sections engaged in trade. have themselves been engaged in practices which the community thinks are dangerous that there has been this demand for legislation and that this Bill is now before us. Many examples have been given during the course of the debate, and particularly in the opening speech of the Minister, of practices that may be and, in fact, are considered wrong, opposed to public welfare.

We have not in this country large cartels as they have in other countries but we have petty rings—I think that is really the description that one can give them — who get together to mulct the public in their own interests. When people do that the community or the public have only one weapon of defence open to them, and that is a Bill that will restrict them and prevent them from engaging in malpractices. Such a Bill might be considered as a Bill for the defence of the public.

Deputy Norton to-night mentioned one particular ring in a very detailed way, and that is the ring that engages in the control of timber imported for the purpose of construction work in the country. There are other petty rings that have been formed in recent years and one of them has been mentioned very often in this House as engaging in very petty restrictions. I refer to an organisation that class themselves or are known as the Wireless Dealers' Association. That particular association has, in fact, deprived individuals of their living through preventing them getting a supply of radios and wireless equipment. I have had complaints from different parts of the country where men who have been engaged in radio sales and radio business for many years were actually put out of business by local competitors who joined this organisation and then prevented the other person who had been longer in the business from joining it. Having prevented him from joining the association they were enabled to prevent him getting a supply of radios; in other words, they deprived him of his livelihood.

People such as that have a lot to answer for and it is right that this House should adopt measures to deal with such organisations, associations or rings. Many examples could be given but if those malpractices have become so numerous in the space of 20 or 25 years, what prospect have we in looking forward into the future unless some power to control and to prevent such malpractices is taken now?

Looking at the malpractices to which I have referred and those other malpractices to which other Deputies have referred, I have had to consider whether we have established in this Bill the machinery that will put an end to those practices within a reasonable period of time. The more I study the Bill and the more I consider the complicated machinery established by the Bill, the more doubtful I am that the machinery in this measure can be operated within a reasonable time. I understand, at least I think I can understand, the Minister's difficulties. I think I can understand the difficulties of the draftsman because I can see that there are substantial constitutional difficulties in the way of a measure such as this. In drafting this Bill the Minister, the parliamentary draftsman and the advisers of the Minister have endeavoured to get beyond the constitutional obstacles and to provide machinery that will work even though it is complicated machinery and can only be brought into operation after the lapse of a considerable period of time.

On that aspect of it, I would like to make a few observations which will set out my own views in regard to the method by which I think this problem ought to be dealt with but in view of the time it would be best if I proposed the adjournment of the debate at this stage.

Debate adjourned.