CHAIN CHEMISTS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22424, 21 May 1936, Page 14

CHAIN CHEMISTS

HEARING OF PETITION CASE FOR BOOTS, LIMITED PROPOSED DOMINION FACTORY * [BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION! WELLINGTON. Wednesday Evidence on behalf of Boots, Limited, was given to-day at the resumed hearing of the petitions for the exclusion of chain store pharmacies by the Industries and Commerce Committee of tho House of Representatives. Mr. C. L. Saul produced a letter from Dr. Anson, chairman of the British Medical Association of New Zealand, in which Dr. Anson, referring to a letter previously written by him and which was the basis of a statement on behalf of the pharmaceutical chemists that they had the support of tho association, said it was merely intended to convoy tho fact that the executive of the association had no complaints from its members as to the efficiency of tho present pharmaceutical service of the Dominion to the medical profession, and was definitely not intended to suggest that the British Medical Association was giving any support one way or the other in tho present controversy. "The matter is not one within our province, and as such has not come before our members. You have my authority to produce this letter at the committee inquiry," the letter stated. "No Comparison with America"

Witness said he had been employed by Boots for 16 years. No parallel could bo drawn between the company's shops in England and the drug stores of America. It would be definitely shown that it was the company's intention to stock only normal chemists' merchandise in New Zealand. His company took the view that lower prices brought the commodity within the reach of an increased number of customers, thereby enlarging the turnover of chemists' commodities generally, to the advantage of the public and of the trade itself. There, he suggested, was the reason the private chemists of Great Britain were prospering in spite of Boots' competition, while private chemists in New Zealand were in an unenviable position, as revealed by Mr. Heslop's figures. Private chemists in England had been compelled to keep prices at a reasonable level, profiting by an increased turnover.

Witness also indicated his board's policy to bo one of gradual and not sudden development, on the basis of suitable businesses being offered them for purchase. Ho said he hafl been authorised by Lord Trent to say that when the company was in a position to justify by actual trading figures any invitation to capital subscription, it would give favourable consideration to an issue open to the New Zealand jyiblic.Mr. D. S. Henderson gave figures relating to the company's business hero —property, stock, wages, etc. —and prices. Wellington chemists, he said, were affected only to the extent of ono prescription per diem. British Firm's Proposals Mr. Henry Snelson Hibbins, manufacturing manager for Boots Pure Drug Company, Nottingham, said he was sent to New Zealand by the company to investigate the resources for the production of pharmaceutical specialties and drugs, and to report on the question of erecting and operating a factory in New Zealand. He was instructed to investigate the possibility of producing fine chemicals in the Dominion, particularly insulin. Witness was satisfied that it would be in tho best interests of the comf>any to operate a factory in New Zealand, and he was authorised by Lord Trent to state that, in the event of no restrictions being placed on the activities of Boots (New Zealand), Limited, the company would commence tho erection of a factory in New Zealand in 12 months. A considerable Supply of raw material existed in the country. The staff would include a factory manager, a research chemist, and an analytical chemist, but it was hoped the rest of the labour would be recruited in New Zealand. This concluded the evidence for Boots.

Mr. E. W. Nicolaus, of Wellington, said that as a member of the general consuming public he challenged the right of any special interest to petition the Government to restrict open, fair competition in its particular commodities, which was the only safeguard against profiteering, and 'he protested hb a taxpayer against any individual or company of individuals neeking material and legal aid from the Government for the benefit of its private interests. The committee adjourned until tomorrow.