Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 27 Apr 1966

Vol. 222 No. 4

Restrictive Trade Practices (Confirmation of Order) Bill, 1966—Second and Subsequent Stages.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The object of the Bill is to confirm an Order which I have made under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1953, on the recommendation of the Fair Trade Commission, in regard to the supply and distribution of intoxicating liquor and non-alcoholic beverages.

Deputies have already received copies of the Commission's report of their inquiry into this matter, but I propose to give here a summary of its contents.

The inquiry related to restrictive trade practices affecting supply and distribution and involving, inter alia, arrangements, agreements or understandings between retailers, made at the instance of retail trade associations, which affect or are capable of affecting the retail prices of intoxicating liquor and soft drinks. The inquiry was undertaken by the Commission at my request, when, shortly after the introduction of the Budget on 11th May, 1965, retail prices in the licensed trade throughout the country were increased by amounts equal to twice the amount of the increase in the duties on spirits and beer imposed by the Budget.

The Commission gave consideration to all the relevant factors, including the structure of the retail trade, the gross profit margins in the trade, the activities of trade associations and the preparation of price lists and circulars.

They also examined a number of financial accounts furnished by publicans both in Dublin and in rural areas. They took into account the special importance of a fixed gross profit margin when it relates to a trade the value of the sales of which are enhanced by revenue duties of considerable magnitude.

The Commission found that there was only one type of restrictive practice in the trade which fell within the terms of reference of the inquiry, that is, the one relating to the preparation and issue of price lists and circulars by retail associations of licensed traders. A remarkable feature of the trade is the number of associations which represent retail interests. These have issued price lists or circulars in 17 counties. To the knowledge of the Commission, 27 associations issue price lists or circulars periodically. In their Report, the Commission describe the procedures employed by a number of associations in connection with the preparation of price lists and circulars (Chapter 13). In Dublin, for example, it is the practice for the trade association to have the question of revised prices considered by its committee of management which consists of some 40 members of the Association. There is normally a discussion about conditions generally in the trade and an attempt is made to assess the magnitude of increased costs and the appropriateness of making an increase in prices. It is not the practice to have financial accounts of a cross section of members available for discussion. The Association considers that the combined experience of the committee of management enables it to decide in an equitable and satisfactory manner what the new prices ought to be and, in this connection, the Association has constantly in mind the desirability of achieving a fixed percentage gross profit margin on turnover. Usually, though not always, a general meeting of the members of the Association is subsequently convened, when the proposals of the committee are placed before it and a vote is taken after the proposals have been discussed.

When new prices are decided upon by trade associations, they may be notified to members by means of a price list or by the issue of a circular letter or, on occasion, by the insertion of an advertisement in the daily press.

Two associations, namely, the Dublin Licensed Grocers' and Vintners' Association and County Sligo Licensed Vintners' Association take measures designed to secure compliance with their recommended prices. These measures are described in Chapter 14 of the Report. The Commission are satisfied that serious and systematic attention to "price cutting" in the Dublin area has been given by the committee of the Association, both members of the Association and non-members have been visited by the organiser and, on occasion, by some of the honorary officers of the committee in an endeavour to secure their agreement to charge the Association's recommended prices. On one occasion the question of securing the co-operation of the trade union was considered. The Association also took specific measures in certain instances in which compliance with their recommended prices would have created a special problem for members. In regard to arrangements between the Association and Messrs. Guinness concerning retail houses owned by the latter, the Commission were not satisfied that there was not an element of moral pressure underlying the arrangements.

In the case of County Sligo, officers of the Association may call on publicans with a view to explaining to them the economic reasons for the new prices proposed and that, if a member remains unconvinced, he may voluntarily withdraw from the Association.

The Commission took evidence from brewers, distillers, and soft drink manufacturers, as well as from the licensed trade itself, in regard to the advantages or disadvantages of the issue of price lists by retail associations. Having considered the views of the different parties, most of which they reject, the Commission were of opinion that:—

(a) the practice of issuing lists of recommended prices manifestly restricts price competition, since many licensed vintners unquestioningly charge the recommended prices, and do not determine their own selling prices in the light of their own costs and their experience of the trade;

(b) a further restrictive element arises in relation to the enforcement of recommended prices by a number of associations because its objective is to ensure that particular traders charge higher prices than may be warranted in their cases;

(c) such interference with competition is unfair and operates against the public interest, because (i) the public are denied the benefits which ordinarily result from the free play of competitive forces, and (ii) retail prices are recommended on the basis of fixed percentage gross profit margins which are capable of yielding excessive profits, since the profit margins are related to selling prices of which taxation forms an important constituent;

(d) it is not compatible with the public interest that retail prices in the licensed trade should be influenced by the collective action of members of associations whose primary interest is their own welfare rather than the promotion of the public good.

The Fair Trade Commission recommended:—

(1) That the practice whereby associations representing the licensed trade issue lists of recommended prices should cease.

The Commission do not see any reason why matters affecting costs or prices should not be discussed at meetings of such associations, but they do think that no recommendations should be made, pressure exercised, or guidance in any form given by retail organisations in regard to the prices to be charged for intoxicating liquor or soft drinks.

(2) That an Order should be made under the Restrictive Trade Practices Acts making it unlawful for retail trade associations or groups of licensed traders (a) to make any collective decisions, recommendations or proposals in regard to the selling prices to be adopted for intoxicating liquor or soft drinks, and (b) to prepare, publish, issue or advertise retail price lists or circulars or other communications (whether oral or written) indicating or recommending alterations in retail prices by reference to existing lists or otherwise.

I accepted the recommendations of the Commission and made the Restrictive Trade Practices (Intoxicating Liquor and Non-alcoholic Beverages) Order, 1965. The Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1953, provides that an Order of this kind shall not have effect unless it is confirmed by an Act of the Oireachtas. The Bill now before the Dáil is the confirming Bill which is necessary to give force of law to the Order as made. With Bills of this kind, the arrangement is that the Order which it is proposed to confirm should not be subject to amendment by the Oireachtas but should be accepted or rejected as it stands. The matters with which the Order deals have been the subject of a detailed public inquiry by the Fair Trade Commission and their report sets out the arguments in favour of accepting the provisions embodied in the Order. I can, therefore, recommend this confirmation Bill to the Dáil without reservation. Its enactment should result in the development of competition which should tend to produce more diversified prices at a generally lower level than under the present system, with consequent benefits to the public.

The Bill confirming the Order made by the Minister some time ago is but part of the Government's legislation on prices. It has to do with the fact that the Government have indicated that prices and incomes and wages, in which they were not very interested some little while ago, should be regarded as something that should not go up spectacularly but should have a very balanced increase at all times. The first thing one has to say about this Order is that the Government have a particular vested interest in drink prices arising from the fact that a very large slice of their revenue comes from indirect taxation on alcoholic beverages and, to a minor extent, on non-alcoholic beverages. Any increase in price has an effect on the following Budget when the Government are considering whether or not they have reached saturation point in taxation on drink and therefore they would wish to see increases in costs and prices sought by the trade and the breweries themselves kept to a minimum.

There is a corollary to this legislation in the action taken by the Minister in relation to the breweries which, at the time, I described as resembling somebody with two club feet walking over a strawberry bed. While the effort here has popular appeal, an appeal that might indicate that the Government and the Minister were considering people's welfare and how much they should be charged for drink, I would now say that it is also a rather unsuccessful and crude attempt at curtailing an increase in the price of drink. I know of no effect that this Order has had except that in any of the licensed premises I visited, there is no longer a price list displayed. Usually the price list displayed was in fact the price list that came from the Liquor Association and it indicated to the customer the proper charge in the area. This had virtues, particularly in lounges where drink is served at tables. There have been instances of persons attending tables who did not rob their employers but who did something far worse, namely, taking a larger sum from the customer than they tendered to the man behind the counter. I feel that this Order has had absolutely no effect on drink prices.

It cannot be effective until it is confirmed. It has not the force of law.

Agreed. If the Minister goes around the country, he will find that the price lists have been removed from public houses but that has had no effect at all, that I am aware of, on drink prices. Let us be quite honest about it. The Prices (Stabilisation) Order, which is quite a similar piece of legislation to this and has a very definite relation to it, has been, in relation to drink prices, a complete failure. Personal service and standard service—the standard of accommodation and comfort and whether one wants to drink a pint at a public bar, which one may well desire to do tonight, or to bring one's wife and to. drink something else in a lounge bar in the same establishment tomorrow night—all have effect on drink prices.

The attempt to freeze drink prices, of which this legislation is part, has been an abject failure all over the country. There is no drinker today who does not know that increases in drink prices after the Budget have varied not only from town to town but from pub to pub and that the directions of the Prices (Stabilisation) Order, and this Order, have been entirely disobeyed and that the Government have sat and done nothing about it. However, what the Government can do, after this Order becomes law—from today—is to see to it that these prices are not displayed. Do the Government think for one moment that brother publicans in the same area and the same districts will not have discussions on prices? It is quite clear that they will. If, in future, there is not a written communication—well, many a deal was made by word of mouth. If the Government's action is restricting the profits of breweries, which are so important to the economy of the country, and their attempt to restrict the prices of drink to a certain level after the Budget have completely failed, then we must face it that this is merely a piece of window-dressing and that there is no hope whatever that this Order, now confirmed today, will have any effect at all on drink prices. The whole thing has been a sorry sham. We can see the failure of that sham today when we see, for instance, that the Minister has had to change his mind about the future of wage increases. This Order will have no effect and people will still charge the prices they feel they can get. If competition ensures that they do not get them, then they will decrease the prices. That is how it is, how it has been and how it will be. Neither price stabilisation nor this Order will have any effect. We have no objection to the passing of this legislation but it will be entirely ineffective.

I do not think Deputy Donegan is right when he says legislation such as this will have no effect on prices. It is not the ultimate in what can be done to control prices but it is at least something that this Party have been asking the Government to do for a long time. While it is irrelevant to this legislation, it is not unfair to say that industrial unrest has been contributed to by the complacency of the Government in the matter of prices and in their refusal to exercise price control until last July. They were then converted to ideas promoted here—as I think the Minister must admit—by the Labour Party, in spite of protests by the Minister's predecessors, the Taoiseach and previous members of the Government, that price control was not a solution to our problem. We agree it is not an absolute solution.

On the other hand, a document was circulated to Deputies last November or December. It was a report of the National Industrial Economic Council which, contrary to the Government view, expressed the belief that if an incomes policy were to operate, there would have to be permanent price control. Mark you, the Government accepted that report generally and at some time the Taoiseach or some Minister will be required to say exactly with what in that report they agree and to what in the report they will give the full force of legislation. If they have any respect for NIEC, they must put these proposals into operation by means of Order or legislation.

One of the first questions one should ask about this legislation is: why were these things singled out? The Minister must start some place but this inquiry was held in, I think, May of last year. What amused or bemused many and annoyed many others is that while the prices of essential commodities had been, and were going up, the first commodity into which the Minister ordered an inquiry was drink. There was no inquiry into foodstuffs—there was in the case of jam but this was the first important one.

That came after the one in May, as far as I remember. The first public inquiry was in respect of drink. It is a sad reflection on the mind of the Government to say that what they considered most important in regard to price control was drink.

That is what they get revenue from.

While it is a fairly necessary commodity, it is not as important as food. I suppose the Commission believed there was something in the fact that in the case of X, Y and Z or A, B and C the price of the bottle of stout and the "half-one" was the same. That suggested a restrictive practice, that people had congregated and decided what the price of stout, whiskey and brandy would be. The Minister should get around to some other commodities where I think it might be found there are also restrictive practices operating. It is peculiar that in regard to a commodity on which tens of thousands of pounds in this country and millions all over the world are spent on advertising, there is no suggestion of a restrictive practice. I have never had any effective answer to the question of how the price of petrol from five, six or seven firms always happens to be the same. It is true that in various garages in Dublin —you could possibly count them on the fingers of one hand—there are notices saying that petrol can be purchased for 3d. or 4d. per gallon less than the ordinary price but in 99.9 per cent of cases, the price of petrol is exactly the same all over the Dublin region and in the country districts. This is peculiar. Surely they do not all have the very same costs? They may make the same wages but surely the other costs cannot all work out exactly the same? As far as restricted practices and price fixing are concerned, the Minister could ask the Fair Trade Commission to do a little more research, particularly in regard to commodities that could be classed as more necessary than liquor.

I do not know what the cost of living index figure for May will be but it is suggested that prices are again creeping up and therefore I ask the Minister to say something about the machinery he now employs to check prices. I know that if it were to be done 100 per cent, we should need an army of inspectors all over the country but I suggest that small increases are going on small commodities, perhaps not bread, not tea, butter or sugar, but any housewife knows of them. I am sure the Minister's wife has often told him that the cost of living is continuing to rise. I am not talking of the overall index figure but of the cost of certain articles to which a halfpenny, penny or 2d. is tacked on. The Minister should indicate what new staff, if any, he has employed to ensure that the prices legislation to which we gave approval last July will be fully effective. Apart from those comments, I think there is no more to be said on this proposal.

This is a confirmation of a Restrictive Trade Practices Order and the Order is not to be confused with the Prices Order made about the same period.

But it is done in the name of price control.

We did not confuse it; we compared it.

We know exactly what it is. It was done to get some stability in prices.

The control of prices philosophy emerges again from the two speeches made here. Prior to last July, the philosophy behind price control was that giving adequate freedom of competition was the best method of control of prices. Only in special circumstances would the Government think it fit to take definite measures, apart from allowing freedom of competition. If these special circumstances existed, it would be decided by the Government that the Minister for Industry and Commerce be given special powers. Before this enactment, which was an amendment of the Prices Act, we worked on the basis that if competition were free, prices were best regulated in that way and the legislation was based on the making of competition free and the removal of any curbs on competition which might have emerged. That is what the Fair Trade Commission was intended for.

It has been there since 1953 and its activities down through the years, quite unrelated to any recent decisions of the Government, have been addressed to a variety of articles. They include groceries, motorcars, petrol, radios, television sets and many other things and there were public inquiries in all these cases. So, it is not quite fair to say that the first inquiry by the Fair Trade Commission was into alcohol but it is true that the first inquiry by the Fair Trade Commission immediately prior to the Government decision that there were particularly difficult circumstances which required inquiries was into alcohol. The first inquiries into commodities by the Fair Trade Commission were carried out many years ago and certainly were not into alcohol. The matters which Deputy Corish felt had been ignored by the Government had previously been inquired into by the Fair Trade Commission.

And they found nothing wrong.

The reports are all published. They did describe what had been found wrong and recommended what should be done.

What was done about it by the Government?

That is going back a long way. The Government felt that the best way to control prices was by the making of orders to prevent restrictive practices which limited the competition.

Would the Minister be satisfied with his justification of charging the same price per gallon for petrol?

I am not arguing on the merits of particular cases. If a man stands up in this House and says that the first investigation was into the price of liquor and this reflects on the Government, when, in fact, the first investigation by the Fair Trade Commission was some 12 years before that and there had been several investigations before the drinks inquiry, I should correct that.

The Minister would be perfectly right in correcting that and if I may add to my statement, I want to say that I meant since the ninth round increase.

What happened at the time the increase was put on last May was that this was the only machinery open to me to deal with it. In actual practice where the Commission found restrictive practices, I made an Order which I now want the Oireachtas to confirm, from the evidence gained at the inquiry, and I made another order, which does not need confirmation, in relation to the price of drink. It was used before we had the amending legislation introduced last July. But, in relation to the prices, which I am sure I am not in order in discussing but I think Deputy Corish would like me to answer him, the effective thing that was done in relation to prices since last July was the requirement of a three months' notice of any proposed increase. That has been quite effective and each request or notification of an increase of price has been investigated by my Department.

This is the amendment we gave you.

I am delighted to hear the Minister did that.

I accepted the amendment.

This is the amendment the Minister was good enough to accept.

I did, and Deputies have criticised and said that we did nothing since. Any manufacturer who proposes to put up his price has to go through this procedure to justify the increase. This type of control is difficult, as Deputy Corish said, and I have had to be unreasonable with a good number of people but principles are beginning to show. I have for example allowed increases in the cost of raw material which are outside the control of the manufacturer or increases in the cost of imported material used to be passed on but I follow the principle of not allowing the manufacturer to increase his profit margin. The Government have made clear their attitude to prices in the statement issued yesterday. I would say to Deputy Corish that I do not think it is just enough to say that we all have an increase in wages but that prices must stay as they are. Prices must be related to wages as these naturally affect costs.

I did not say that.

I would not like people to get along with the idea that prices can be held regardless of the costs of the various processes of manufacture. It is not so. We can improve our productivity if we try very hard and both sides of industry become very interested in this matter. If we do not improve productivity, we will drive ourselves out of world markets and cause unemployment here. Apart from any improvements we may get in productivity, if we give ourselves too much by way of wage increases it follows that prices must be affected.

It is all according to who gets too much.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill put through Committee and reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
Barr
Roinn