COINCIDENCE AND THE COUNCIL

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27832, 3 December 1955, Page 10

COINCIDENCE AND THE COUNCIL

PRICES BY (PRE) ARRANGEMENT For the second time in three years the Birmingham City Corporation has complained to the Monopolies Commission that tenders by eight firms for tyres for the city’s buses were identical—ddwn to the last farthing. The contract is worth £120,000 a year. It’s a poor show—but the Corporation at least had access to a court of appeal. Unlike monopoly, the price ring pays lip service to competition, while reducing it to a farce. Earlier in the year the Wellington City Council revealed that the majority of the tenders—seven—for certain electrical supplies were for an identical amount. 'The Auckland Electric Power Board called tenders for the supply of electrical goods. Tenders were received from nine firms, each quoting £128,111/10/-. The Board drew the successful tender from ~a . hat! the term farce is not particularly appropriate —the price ring is not particularly funny. This shackled bidding is entirely foreign to our established system of free, competitive private enterprise, and bears no resemblance to the fixing of fair trade prices in an “open field. ’ Dictated terms are seldom fair terms.

Issued in the interests of all sections th< ; community by the Associated Chambers of Commerce of New .Zealand.—P.B.A.