asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he is aware that a trader (details supplied) has been refused trading terms by a company (details supplied) comparable with trading terms afforded to other traders; and that the Fair Trade Commission has so far failed to take action on foot of the complaints of the trader in question; if he will consider amending fair trade legislation to strengthen the hands of the Fair Trade Commission and to provide traders in such circumstances with effective remedies; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Fair Trade Legislation.
23.
I am aware that the trader involved in the Deputy's question has represented that he has been refused supplies on appropriate terms by a supplier but my information is that the Fair Trade Commission has investigated the complaint and is continuing to do so. I intend to introduce amending legislation in the near future but there is no evidence that the powers at present available under existing legislation are not adequate to deal with this kind of complaint.
Would the Minister agree that the firm in question have refused to give similar trading terms to the trader unless he agrees to join a particular ring? Does the Minister think it requires many months of frustrating correspondence with the Fair Trade Commission to ascertain that such are the facts of the case when the original cause of complaint, on the face of it, requires a trader to be a member of a ring before he will be given the favourable terms of trade?
I am not aware that that is so or that it is very obviously so. I cannot deny that it will ultimately turn out to be so. The original complaint made by this trader to the Fair Trade Commission was investigated. The upshot of that incident was that the trader concerned was sued for defamation by a representative of the company of which he complains and was obliged to pay damages. He subsequently made complaints to the Fair Trade Commission about the refusal of this firm to supply him on certain terms. Inquiries revealed that he had not made any inquiries from the firm or sought any orders. Despite that——
This is basically unfair. It is not like the Minister.
The Deputy will note that I am not mentioning names. The subsequent complaint is being investigated. The trader concerned was called in and met the Fair Trade Commission. A representative of the suppliers was also called in. The matter is being investigated. This is quite recent. The trader concerned expressed his satisfaction on, I think, the 1st of this month, with the approach adopted by the Fair Trade Commission.
Has the Minister ascertained the number of dissatisfactions there are with the Fair Trade Commission? Apart from the trader in question, my information is that they are innumerable. As it stands, the Fair Trade Commission is less than worthless.
The Deputy should relate his remarks to his own question. The Deputy may not enlarge on the question.
Is the Minister aware that this is only one of innumerable cases of dissatisfaction?
Existing legislation and powers of the Fair Trade Commission appear adequate to deal with this case.
Why will they not use them, then?
They are. There are other cases where the powers of the Fair Trade Commission are not sufficient. Amending legislation proposes to remedy that.
They are afraid of the monopolies and rings or else they deliberately refuse to do their job.
Is it not a fact that this case originated not just yesterday or today but some considerable time ago? I am aware that it is being looked after at present. Has it not taken a long time to bring this case to issue?
There have been at least three episodes in this case. The current one—with which Deputy Ryan is concerned, I presume—is the one in which the trader concerned expressed, on the 1st of this month, to the Fair Trade Commission his satisfaction with the manner in which they are dealing with it.