asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if it is proposed to re-introduce the Restrictive Practices (Amendment) Bill; and, if not, why.
16.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Restrictive Practices Legislation.
15.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he has any proposals for antimerger legislation.
17.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if, in view of conflicting statements in relation to the need for State control of mergers and take-overs as envisaged under the Restrictive Practices (Amendment) Bill, 1972, he will indicate the positive steps the Government propose to take to curb the potentially dangerous situation in this regard.
With your approval, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 15, 16 and 17 together.
I do not propose to re-introduce the Restrictive Practices (Amendment) Bill, 1972, because I consider that its scope is too narrow in that it would apply only in mergers and take-overs which resulted in unfair restriction of competition. I am preparing more comprehensive measures for the investigation and control of mergers and take-overs on a wider front.
In view of the statement of the Minister for Finance, am I to take it that there is no co-operation between him and the Minister for Industry and Commerce in this matter?
The Deputy is not so to take it. There is most intimate co-operation between the Minister for Finance and myself on this and other matters.
In view of the fact that the Minister has said that the Restrictive Practices (Amendment) Bill, 1972, was too narrow and the Minister for Finance said it was unnecessary, could the Minister elaborate on what further type of take-over and merger he proposes to include in the now proposed new Amendment Bill?
It is not a matter of take-overs or mergers. It is a matter of considerations which would be relevant in deciding on action. The Bill which lapsed with the termination of the last Dáil was concerned only in so far as takeovers and mergers were related to unfair, restrictive competition. I believe that it is desirable to have power in relation to mergers where there is an influence, for example, on the employment situation or on the regional development situation, or where there is an industry which may be of some special significance in the whole national economy, or where there is a particular matter of the interests of stockholders. The Deputy could think of examples, as I can, of a recent occasion where this was relevant. There is also the question of the interests of workers and many aspects other than the restriction of competition which I believe should be brought within the scope of the Bill, and which I will endeavour to bring within its scope.
Does the Minister agree that it is necessary to cover the field that was envisaged by the previous Bill? It appears that the Minister agrees on this point. In view of the fact that it is necessary to endeavour to close some doors in this regard, does the Minister envisage that his enlarged Amendment Bill will be ready to be taken during the present Dáil session? If not, does he not think that he is justified in going ahead with the original Bill?
There are three questions there. The Deputy will be aware, as he was the person who introduced the original Bill in this House, that there was a considerable measure of agreement about it in so far as it went. I have indicated that in my answer today when I said that the scope was too narrow. That is not to suggest that the scope of the original Bill in what it contained itself was unsatisfactory. My criticism of it was that it was too narrow. The Deputy is aware of the pressure from different Departments at a time like this in regard to the preparation of Bills. It is my intention and my hope to have the enlarged Bill in the Dáil in the present session. The third question of the Deputy does not, therefore, arise.
Does the Minister accept it is urgent?
Yes.
Could the Minister say, in view of the statements made by Ministers of the present Government, whether he has any difficulty in convincing the Government that the type of legislation he wants enacted will be enacted?
No.
I do not think the Deputy's question is particularly relevant.
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply I wish to raise it on the Adjournment.
The Deputy does not even know what the question is.
The Chair will communicate with Deputy Dowling.