IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL, 1928—THIRD STAGE.
The Dáil went into Committee.
Question: "That Sections 1, 2 and 3 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
(3) Every person appointed under this section to be a special inspector shall be a member of the Gárda Síochána and shall possess a certificate under Section 8 of the Act of 1904.
I move:—
In sub-section (3), page 3, line 3, at the end of the sub-section to insert the following words: "or a special inspector's certificate granted in accordance with regulations made by the Minister under this section."
The special inspector, as described in the amendment and as authorised by this Bill, will have duties which will not be restricted in so far as area is concerned but they will be restricted in so far as he will have to attend at the verification and stamping of bottles. It is agreed that for such duties a special certificate of general training necessary for qualification as an Inspector of Weights and Measures will not be required and that a more limited form of certificate will be sufficient. It is proposed that that form should depend on a less difficult type of examination.
This section of the Act provides that every person appointed under the section to be a special inspector shall be a member of the Gárda Síochána. I would like if the Minister would give an explanation as to why it is necessary to put in a section of that kind which leaves no option but makes it mandatory that every inspector shall be a member of the Gárda Síochána; whether he considers that he will be able to get a sufficient number of competent inspectors from the Gárda Síochána to do this work; and, further, whether he will be able to release them from their other duties to enable them to take up this duty?
It is considered desirable to have it mandatory that special inspectors should be members of the Gárda Síochána. It will also be possible to arrange—if it be found that all the members of the Gárdaí cannot be released from police duties to do this work which will be intermittent, which will not last for a prolonged period and which will come in a rush—some method by which additional inspectors can be recruited from the Gárdaí. It is considered exceptionally desirable that members of the Gárdaí should perform these duties instead of civilian inspectors. The work is intermittent and would not last long in the yearly period. In the normal course one would find if a civilian were appointed that the man appointed after getting some experience, would have found other work during his idle time and would not be available again when required, whereas the Gárda can return to his ordinary duties and can discharge these duties before being called upon a second time to do the work of a special inspector.
It is also considered desirable that the people doing this work should not be civilians who would be known, or between whom there might be some associations with factories or with people who had bottles for stamping. The Gárdaí can keep their distance inasmuch as there is a large number of them and they can be changed from place to place. They are available when the work arises and on its conclusion they can return to their ordinary duties.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Section 5 put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.—SUB-SECTION (2).
The Commissioner shall assign a special inspector to every place appointed by him under this section for the verification and stamping of bottles to which this Act applies and it shall be the duty of such special inspector to attend at such place at the times appointed in respect thereof by the Commissioner under this section and there to perform the duties in relation to the verification and stamping of bottles to which this Act applies imposed on him by the Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1904, as amended by this Act.
I move:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) In addition to the times and places fixed under the Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1904, for the verification and stamping of weights and measures, imported bottles to which this Act applies may be verified and stamped at such times and in such places at the port or place of importation as the Commissioner shall with the approval of the Minister appoint, and for that purpose the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland may with such approval provide a suitable place for such verification and stamping at any port or place of importation."
Amendments 2 and 3 go together. I am bringing forward amendment No. 2, although I am not proposing to press it myself, but inasmuch as I stated on Second Reading that this suggestion had been made by members of the trade who were interested, I agreed that I would bring it forward for discussion here. Shortly it enables this to be done: in the case of imported bottles those bottles may be verified and stamped at testing places, to be appointed, at the ports. If it is agreeable to the House, and if they think that this should be done, this amendment will give power to have that done in cases where it seems desirable. The other side of that is that, of course, the expense of such verification and testing at the ports will have to be met by the fees to be charged for that verification. As far as I can make out the fees that would be charged would be prohibitive, and it would mean very definitely that nobody would avail of the provision. I do not think the provision would be of any use. I may say in addition that it is within my power, within the Weights and Measures Act, to allow stamping and verification to be done on traders' premises, and once we get rid of the rush that there is at the moment with regard to stamping of these bottles, it will be possible to have that arranged for. I do not think this provision will be of any benefit to traders. I do not think it is even desirable that it should be given even if it were going to be of any benefit. If traders insist that they are going to be inconvenienced, so far as the inconvenience is concerned, but not the cost, it can be lessened by enabling the duties to be carried out on traders' premises. I said I would bring forward these amendments for discussion, but I do not support them myself. I leave them to the House.
Will the Minister inform the House as to the present arrangement for the stamping of imported bottles?
It is done at selected places. The bottles can be stamped on the traders' premises. It is hard to state what is the absolute practice. The stamping of bottles has arisen under the Standard Bottles Order. Since the Standard Bottles Order came out a very big proportion of the bottles in use in the country and a very big proportion of the wastage have been supplied by the glass bottles factory, where the bottles are stamped on the spot. With regard to others, we are making special arrangements to cope with the number of bottles in use about which we had made special regulations. One can hardly say that there is a definite practice. Rather I can say that there is a practice, but one cannot say that that will continue for all time. The matter will have to be regularised. I have been asked to make arrangements to send hand-blast machines to certain traders' premises when stocks are coming in so that the bottles might be stamped there. I will agree to that if certain things happen, but at the moment we are trying to cope with the big number of bottles not stamped or designated in any way. We are making arrangements to deal with the matter, but one can hardly say that there is a set practice.
The purpose of the amendment is to lessen the inconvenience, not to lessen the cost?
I think the traders hope that it will also lessen the cost.
When the Second Reading of the Bill was being debated, we expressed the view that the Dáil should not take any steps that would lessen the inconvenience or the cost of importing bottles, particularly standard bottles. We still adhere to that view. We think no action should be taken by the Dáil which would make it easier for the traders of the country to import bottles instead of purchasing bottles manufactured here, or which would be detrimental to the glass bottle industry. Therefore, we are opposing the amendment.
As one connected with the trade, I quite agree that the expense incurred by stamping at the ports would be exorbitant. I suggest to the Minister that the proper place to stamp bottles, either imported or home-manufactured, would be on the traders' premises. I think that would meet traders' wishes, and that every facility would be given by them to get these bottles stamped on the premises.
I hope the Deputy realises that it is within my power to enable the stamping and verification to be done on the traders' premises, but there are certain conditions to be looked to. I think the Deputy is right in assuming that the charges would be exorbitant for stamping at the ports, but the passing of the amendment does not ensure that testing places would be established at the ports. It only gives the Minister power to have these established. I think it may be assumed that there would be no testing places at the ports unless there was a guarantee of a reasonable supply of bottles coming in at certain intervals and an assurance that the fees charged would be made to meet the expense. I do not think the amendment would do the least injury to the glass bottle factory, but I do not suggest that the House should pass it.
Is the amendment to be withdrawn or shall I put it?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 6 and 7 put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
(1) There shall be paid in respect of the verification and stamping of bottles to which this Act applies by the persons requiring the same to be verified such fees as may be prescribed by regulations made under this section by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance and different fees may be so prescribed for different classes of bottles and for different methods of testing.
(2) All fees payable under this section in respect of the verification and stamping of bottles by an inspector of weights and measures or an ex-officio inspector of weights and measures shall be paid to such inspector and applied and accounted for by him in like manner as if the same were fees received by him under the Principal Act.
(3) All fees payable under this section in respect of the verification and stamping of bottles by a special inspector shall be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer in such manner as the Minister for Finance shall direct.
Amendment 3 not moved.
I move:—
In sub-section (3), page 4, lines 61 and 62, to delete all words from and including the words "or disposed of" to the end of the sub-section and to insert in lieu of the words so deleted the words "the Gárda Síochána Reward Fund and the Exchequer in such proportions as the Minister for Finance shall direct." Sub-section (3) of Section 8 reads:
"All fees payable under this section in respect of the verification and stamping of bottles by a special inspector shall be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer in such manner as the Minister for Finance shall direct."
I want to drop the end of that and to insert: "shall be paid into the Gárda Síochána Reward Fund and the Exchequer in such proportions as the Minister for Finance shall direct."
Ex-officio inspectors of weights and measures, attached to the Gárda Síochána by reason of the provisions of this Act, cannot be paid any extra regular remuneration. The procedure which had been previously adopted, in consideration of the fact that in connection with an inspector under the Weights and Measures Act certain special qualifications involving special studies were necessary, was that annual bonuses were paid to ex-officio inspectors from what was generally described as the Reward Fund. Under that fund bonuses were paid. It is now proposed to follow the same procedure in connection with the special inspectors employed on the testing of bottles in factories. Under the Bill it was previously suggested that these funds should be paid into the Exchequer. It is now proposed that portion should be paid into the Gárda Síochána Fund with the object of enabling these inspectors who are in the factories to be paid small bonuses out of the reward fund for the work they do in connection with weights and measures.
Amendment 4 put and agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Question—"That Sections 9 and 10 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
(1) Every measuring instrument used for trade shall be verified and stamped by an inspector of weights and measures with a stamp of verification under the Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1904, as amended by this Act.
(2) Every person who after the expiration of six months from the passing of this Act uses or has in his possession for use for trade any measuring instrument not stamped as required by this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof, in the case of a first offence, to a fine not exceeding two pounds and, in the case of a second or any subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
(3) Section 32 of the Principal Act shall apply to measuring instruments in like manner as it applies to weights and measures, and Section 48 of the Principal Act shall apply to measuring instruments in like manner as it applies to weights, measures, scales, balances, steelyards and weighing machines.
I move the following amendments:—
5. In sub-section 1 page 5, line 12, before the word "be" to insert in brackets the words "(unless it is the subject of a licence granted under this section and for the time being in force)."
6. Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) Where a measuring instrument which has been used for trade before the 1st day of January, 1928, is, by reason only of the material or principle of construction thereof, incapable of being stamped as required by this section the Minister may, if he thinks fit and subject to such (if any) alteration being made in the construction of such measuring instrument as he may think proper to require, grant and at any time revoke in respect of such measuring instrument a licence authorising the person named therein to use such measuring instrument for trade during such period and subject to such conditions as the Minister may think proper to specify in such licence."
7. In sub-section (2), page 5, lines 18 and 19, to delete the words "not stamped as required by this section" and substitute the words "required by this section to be stamped which is not so stamped."
Amendments 5, 6 and 7 really go together. No. 6 is the important one. I mentioned, on the second reading, that there were certain petrol pumps which, as they are in the country at the moment, could not be granted certificates and that it was proposed to advert to the fact that there is a very big number of this type of measuring instrument at the moment which was bought in good faith as the regulations allowed. We propose to take powers to grant a licence to those who cannot either immediately get a certificate or whose machines cannot be so improved and adjusted as to enable them hereafter to get a certificate. That is the aim of amendment 6. The amendment, as Deputies will notice, allows for the granting of a licence if the Minister thinks fit and subject to such alterations being made in the construction of such measuring instruments as it may be thought proper to require, and a licence when granted may be revoked at any time. The licence will have certain conditions attached and be revocable after a limited period. I think it is a reasonable amendment in consideration of the number of instruments that have been bona fide brought into the country before the regulations were thought of. If the House considers the amendment should pass then amendment 5 is consequential because as it stands sub-section 1 of Section 11 reads:
"Every measuring instrument used for trade shall be verified and stamped."
If the principle explained in the next amendment is admitted then one has to make a consequential amendment in this sub-section so that it will read: "Every measuring instrument used for trade shall (unless it is the subject of a licence granted under this section and for the time being in force) be verified and stamped." That is to fit in with the next amendment, but the substantial point is, is amendment 6 accepted? Amendment 5 is a minor point.
We agree that a certain period should be allowed during which petrol pumps that cannot be stamped as required by this Act should be allowed to operate with a special licence, but we think that that period should not be of any great duration and that perhaps one year would be long enough to allow for it. We would like to see in the amendment proposed by the Minister words to the effect that a licence authorising the person named therein to use such measuring instruments for trade during such period not being longer than one year, and certainly not being longer than two years at the most. The fact is a number of these pumps are inaccurate and the principle of their construction is such that the customer can have no means of knowing that he is getting the full measure he is being offered. We think that the hardship that would be inflicted upon the traders concerned is not likely to be very great. The oil companies whose interests are affected are likely to see their traders are not impeded in selling their goods, and consequently we think that a definite period, not exceeding one year or in or about a year, should be the utmost limit during which these temporary licences should be granted.
I would have a very big difficulty in accepting such a limitation as is suggested by the Deputy, namely, one year. Incidental to his argument, he referred to the oil companies. The big majority are not supplied by the companies to traders, who bought them bona fide believing that they would be accepted. One must advert to that. Supposing there is an instrument of this type, fairly costly, it may be easy to have such adjustments made. I have been told at the moment the numbers are estimated at from 25 to 30. There may be others one may give a licence to. One must take into consideration the ordinary life of these measuring instruments. Certainly a year would not see the end of the usefulness of any single type of measuring instrument I know of, and I think it is unfair to have such a limitation put. Remember, it is bound to get known that such instruments are working, and there will be an incentive to the trader to have a change made, because there will be a recognition in the public mind of a particular type of instrument which is certified as giving a proper measure and others that are licensed. People who are concerned want to get full value. Traders may find that they are not getting the same custom from the instrument which is merely licensed as against those certified. I think there is an incentive by reason of that fact to get rid of those machines which are merely licensed and substitute for them instruments enabled to get a certificate. At any rate, my Department has the duty of seeing that the public is protected in so far as this gives protection. As to the period, it has a duty to see that these instruments which are licensed shall not remain in use any longer than is absolutely necessary. I would not recommend the House to accept any such limitation as a year. A suggestion of this kind would require further examination, so that one could see what state these instruments are in, how many are new, what the average length of life would be, and so on. I think that unless you have that examination made it would cost a great amount of trouble. It would be impossible to state an overriding period of years to which no exception could be taken. I think it would be better to leave it to the Department to use its judgment as to when the licence should be revoked.
May I ask the Minister does he know what number of pumps are affected, and how many will be required to get this extra licence?
Of the number examined at a particular period, I have made as exhaustive an inquiry as could be made. There were 1,392 petrol pumps which were owned by traders. I am excepting altogether those on the premises of commercial firms and not in use for trade. We have no need to go into those. Between those which are covered by a certificate or which could be altered to conform to a certificate, the number would amount to 825. There are a certain number outstanding, being examined for a certificate amounting to 44, and the remainder 523 is, as far as we could arrive at it at the moment, the number of those that could be used only under licence. That is, 523 out of 1,392.
With regard to these proprietary pumps, I think the Minister ought to make further inquiries. Probably 49 out of 50 of these are selling spirit; in many cases they are doing more trade than the public pump. I think it will mean a great deal of work for the Gárda, if they are to watch these traders and see that they do not sell spirit, unless they have the new type of pump. If the Minister thinks that these are merely for the purposes of the owner I think he is making a very big mistake. He will find, if inquiries are made, that every one of them is selling spirit.
Are we to understand that every effort will be made to see that these pumps are reasonably accurate before they are licensed?
Certainly. In reply to Deputy Moore, if what he describes as proprietary pumps are in use for the purposes of trade then they come under regulation. If there is a mistake being made we will have to see that it is rectified.
What will determine whether they are in use for trade or not?
In ordinary circumstances it is a matter of the use of them. There is a definition of "in use for trading purposes"; there is a particular statement that has been interpreted in a particular way. It is simply a matter of finding out the circumstances. There will be no difficulty in fitting the interpretation to the facts. I am only giving the number of 400 as an estimate, because, naturally, as they do not come under authority and under investigation in the sense that these others do, it must be an estimate. There is no necessity for an amendment to the Act with regard to these. There are statutory obligations with regard to pumps. If the pumps are in use for trade, then they suffer from all the impact of the Weights and Measures code.
Nominally, these are only for use within the premises, but the person who has one of these pumps sells to everybody whom he gets into his yard. Will it be illegal for him to sell spirit in future?
Certainly. Selling to the public means that it is being used for trading purposes. It is then a question of whether the instrument is covered by a certain code or is adjusted so as to be covered by a certificate, or whether it gets a licence. If it does not come within any of these three heads, then it is illegal.
I think if a member of the Civic Guard detected a trader owning one of these pumps selling spirit to the public, his pump would immediately come within the Act. He would have to get either a certificate or a licence, or the pump would be put out of use altogether.
I would like that the Minister would state what would be the period during which he thinks a licence should extend in the case of a new pump, how long it should be allowed to operate, presuming the pump remains in fairly good order. One of the complaints we hear fairly frequently is that traders sell inferior spirit through the medium of these pumps, although charging the price of the best spirit. It is one of the forms of fraud that we would like to see made as nearly as impossible as can be done by legislation. If the making of inquiries prior to granting a certificate under this Act establishes the fact that that practice would continue, then we think that a special licence for pumps which cannot be brought under the Act should be for the shortest possible period. I would like the Minister to state if an overriding period is suggested what period he would be prepared to consider.
I cannot answer that question immediately. At one time I had these pumps divided into particular types from which one might arrive at a judgment as to the maximum period to be allowed. I have not the information here. It would require a thorough-going examination before a statement could be made. An amendment which would fix the maximum period of years would give too long a life to some of these pumps. I think it is better to leave it to the officials of the Department from time to time to revoke licences as they think justice or equity has not been done to the people concerned.
The quality of the spirit is not dealt with under this Bill; it is a matter for another type of legislation. This Bill is only in regard to weights and measures, only in regard to getting proper weight or proper quantities. The question of quality would be made a matter for legislation to ensure that only particular types of spirit will be sold.
Can the Minister say how often an inspection of these pumps will be carried out? As I understand the position, it will be the duty of the local authority, through its inspectors, to have these pumps inspected from time to time with regard to weights and measures. I think there is a definite period within which these inspections must take place. Would some such provision apply to pumps?
No. For the purpose of this amendment, really what would happen would be an original inspection to discriminate into the three classes—those to be granted certificates; those which may be adjusted so as to get certificates, and those which can be given licences. After they are either certificated or licensed, the system of inspection will be surprise visits from time to time to see if things are in order. There is no obligation to make so many visits within a certain period of time. It is far better to have surprise visits at irregular periods.
I am not yet convinced that you could not put in a definite period of time during which these licences are to operate. The fact is that few traders own their pumps; they buy them from the oil companies and pay for them by instalments, very often by a small increase in the price of petrol. But they are nominally the property of the oil companies. I believe if a definite period were stated— one or two years at the end of which only pumps that could be approved would be allowed for the sale of spirits in this country—that the oil companies themselves would do as they have done in the past, facilitate traders in getting a new type of pump. Then you would have a standardised type of pump that would insure to the ordinary customer that he was getting value for his money. That would be no hardship whatsoever.
May I suggest to the Deputy that he should allow this amendment to pass and that he himself would draft an amendment for the Report Stage to fix a period. It would give us something to discuss. Meantime, I would have the particular case examined as to the maximum period of time.
Would the Minister tell us what the regulation at the moment is with regard to the testing of scales? If a scale is tested under the Weights and Measures Act, how long does that test remain in force before a further test is made? Possibly an answer to that would give us some information as to the other point.
Once an instrument is tested and approved it remains until it is discovered to be wrong.
Under the Act there was a regular period fixed. I am only speaking from memory.
If the certificate in the first instance only gives that scale as a year, and that it must be re-examined after that period, why should we not have something the same applying to the pump? That is to say, that the certificate would only apply for a certain period and that it must be retested before a further certificate would be issued?
I think that is a different point. The idea of Deputy Lemass is that one should here establish by law that petrol pumps, not certificated, to be licensed, should not be allowed to remain in the country or operate under this for a longer period than he suggests—say one year. He might say five years. What Deputy Good is at is that scales have to be tested once a year. As against the overriding maximum of five years such as Deputy Lemass wants to insist on, we have Deputy Good's idea that there should be a yearly inspection; they are two different ideas. The amendment has nothing to do with the second.
I presume that after this Bill is passed no machine would be certified except the type of machine which would conform with those conditions.
Well, then, suppose that a machine has been installed recently, a limit of a year would be a hardship in that case. There are throughout the country small traders selling limited quantities of petrol, and they have installed these pumps. There would be a lot of hardship inflicted on them by this section. I think if the matter were left not quite so definite as that the period of the usefulness of a machine would be apparent to those who inspected it.
Very well. It is agreed that that amendment will be taken on the next stage.
Amendments agreed to.
Question proposed—"That Section 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
On Section 11, I want to say, arising out of Deputy Good's remarks re the periodic inspection of machines, that we have received complaints that the inspectors of weights and scales usually associate with themselves an individual who does the actual repairs or alterations that are necessary to the weights or scales so as to make them accurate. The complaint we receive is that this workman who accompanies the inspector generally charges much more than the traders consider fair, or more than he should actually charge. That matter perhaps does not arise now, but I was wondering if some scale of charges could not be devised which would prevent traders being mulcted in this manner. As a rule, there is only one person in the place capable of doing this work, and the trader whose weights and scales are being tested has no option but to employ this person, who charges whatever he likes.
There has been one complaint made in five years as to overcharging for repairs of weights and scales. That complaint was justified—there was only one single complaint in five years. Traders have always their remedy: that they can get the adjustment made by somebody that they can hire themselves or they can do the work themselves. Whatever little bit of metal is to be put on, the trader can hire anybody he likes to put it on so long as it is done in a way to satisfy the inspector. The trader can get that done himself. If the Deputy has any of those complaints I would like to have a note of them, because I would look into the question and see what could be done about them.
I quite agree with what Deputy Lemass has said. Complaints of the nature he has mentioned are very general, and I am very glad he has raised the point. The inspector generally employs some local handymen who do the adjustments to the weights and scales. I know that in most cases there is a protest against these exorbitant charges. It is all very fine to say that there has been only one complaint from the traders in the course of five years. That only means that the traders have not sent on their complaints to the Government. I can assure the Minister that the complaint is general. It would be necessary for the Minister or his Department to look into that question and see whether there could be a scale of charges drawn up, or it could be made quite clear to the traders that they would be quite free to get these adjustments done themselves. Traders do not realise that they can get these repairs or adjustments made themselves. The scales and weights are, generally, taken to the local depot, and they are adjusted, payment being demanded and an unreasonable bill produced for the work done. Generally, the first the trader knows about the work being done is when he is presented with a bill. Complaint on that matter is widespread.
In Galway we have workmen quite competent to do that sort of work, but somehow or other it was managed that a gentleman was imported from Dublin to do it. Actually for the repairing of some machines in Galway a bill was sent in greater than the original cost of the machines. There was a dispute between the Urban Council in Galway and a firm here in Dublin who did some repairs. The firm sent in a bill for £133 odd. The Department of Local Government here recommended the Urban Council to pay £60 or £70 to the firm, but, in my opinion, the £60 or £70 is too much. This work should be open to anyone who employs a fitter, or who has a man of his own able to do it, and the thing should not have been done as it was. There has been an awful lot of robbery through the country in the matter of over-charging for repairs to weighbridges and these other machines.
I also agree with the complaint that is being made. With reference to the suggestion made by the Minister, that the traders should employ their own man, I only know of one instance in my district where that has been done, but the person concerned is in a very big way. The suggestion made by Deputy Lemass that there should be a scale of charges drawn up would, perhaps, meet the case.
I would like to know if, in issuing these special licences for petrol pumps any discrimination would be made between the man who was making his living by this business and the man who has a pump for his own use and is using it to add to his income. It would be against the spirit and the principle suggested in the Food Prices Tribunal—that is, with regard to the licensing of traders, if there was to be no discrimination between them. It would be rather an injustice. At present a great number of people are making their living by the sale of motor spirit and motor accessories generally, and they have a big grievance against the people who have no premises and have a lorry and a pump installed. These latter are competing against the regular trader. I would like to know if there would be any discrimination between these two classes of people. It is a new thing; it savours of what has been called monopoly up to the present. According to the principle in the report of the Food Prices Tribunal there would be nothing wrong about it.
Deputy Moore has mentioned a new point. I have not specially considered that. The action he desires to have taken could be taken under the amendment, because the licence is granted "on such terms as may be considered fit and proper." I am not prepared to say that the point has been considered about discrimination being made. Discrimination will have to be made, I think, by classes; you could not do it for one individual as against another. The matter of discrimination between classes can be considered at a later time. There seems to be a lot of complaints, according to what Deputies mention, but I cannot act on complaints that are all through the country with regard to what Deputy de Loughrey calls exorbitant charges. I must have some details as to the charges that are considered exorbitant and, since they seem to be going round, I would like to have some of them placed in my office rather than have them lodged with people who are not able to take action with regard to remedying whatever is wrong. I cannot see how the suggestion of a scale of charges is going to work out. It will have to be a very elaborate scale to deal with the different types of repairs to machines. Let us have a specific case of complaint; let this be examined and see how the thing works.
My object was to ensure that we would not be getting similar complaints in connection with alterations to petrol pumps to enable them to get a licence. The fact is that it is not generally known that a trader can get alterations done by any person he wishes. Usually the inspector sees that only his nominee will get the job. I agree that it would be very difficult to get a scale of charges to cover all possible repairs. If it was generally known that traders could get these repairs done by any person they liked, or do the repairs themselves if the inspector was satisfied, it would have a good effect amongst the people who now complain. Perhaps an instruction could be sent to the inspectors so that when ordering repairs to be made they could convey the information to the shopkeeper that he could get the repairs done by anybody he likes. Anyhow, now that this measure is coming into operation, provision will be made so that we will not have similar complaints with regard to petrol pumps.
I would like to have the complaints put to me in more specific fashion.
Could we not insert a section in this Bill setting out that wherever repairs are necessary they should be only done by a person agreed upon between the inspector on the one hand and the trader on the other? That would do away with any such difficulty such as has been mentioned.
The Minister has referred to the desirability of having specific complaints made. In order to make the matter more to the point, I will give the Minister an instance of what occurred in Galway. I have it on the best of authority that the gentleman who accompanied the Guards recently when they were inspecting weights and measures was from Dublin —from W. and T. Averys. There was wholesale condemnation of the scales in Galway, and orders were issued that new ones should be purchased. The people expressed great surprise that these scales and weights should be condemned by the Guards while they were in such good repair some few years ago when the Royal Irish Constabulary inspected them. The people seemed to think rather fishy things about the whole transaction, particularly when Averys' man came down and when there was such a lot of scales declared to be out of order and new ones were declared necessary. By a remarkable coincidence the new ones were purchased from Averys.
It seems that the trouble was that these machines should have been condemned three or four years before that; but then we had no inspection, and perhaps as the machines were not condemned before that the traders could very well afford to buy new ones.
It is well to mention that machines now cost about three times what they did cost in pre-war days, and I suppose they put up the cost of repairing in proportion. It is quite a simple matter to repair machines, and there are plenty of men who can do it. As regards the ordinary weighing machines, it is quite a simple matter to put them in order. In the country the people do not know what the cost should be, and they are salted properly. I do not know whether the people in Galway were compelled to get new machines or not, but I know that in some cases they were obliged to get new scales.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 12 to 18, inclusive, agreed to
SECTION 19.
Section 81 of the Principal Act is hereby amended as follows, that is to say:—
(a) by the deletion in the first paragraph thereof (being the paragraph which commences with the words "Nothing in this Act" and ends with the words "within such district") of the words "justices of petty sessions" now contained therein and the insertion in lieu of words so deleted of the words "Minister for Industry and Commerce," and (b) by the deletion in the second paragraph thereof (being the paragraph which commences with the words "Provided that" and ends with the words "the justices of the district") of the words "justices signify" now contained therein and the insertion in lieu of the words so deleted, of the words "Minister for Industry and Commerce signifies," and
(c) by the deletion in the said second paragraph of the words "in a petty sessions district, give or cause to be given to the clerk of that district notice of such selection and the clerk shall immediately make known the said selection to the justices of the district" now contained therein and the insertion in lieu of the words so deleted of the words "give or cause to be given to the Minister for Industry and Commerce notice of such selection."
I beg to move amendment 8:—
In line 51 to delete all words after the word "amended" to the end of the section in page 3 and substitute the following words, "by the deletion of the words ‘under the direction of the justices of petty sessions' and all words from the words ‘Provided that if' to the words ‘justices of the district' now contained therein."
It was proposed in Section 19 to delete a certain portion of the Principal Act by taking out "Justices of the Petty Sessions" and inserting instead the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The old Act did appear to give dual control in certain cases, partly with the police and partly with the Justices of Petty Sessions. I propose to remove "Justices of Sessions" as they no longer exist, and substitute them by myself. It has been put to me that the transfer to myself of the direction of inspectors, as provided in the Bill in its amended form, might interfere with the disciplinary control of these particular members of the Gárdaí. It is not intended that there should be any interference, and I am deleting Section 19 and amending it in a particular way. It amounts to this, that I am deleting the Justices of the Petty Sessions and substituting them by nobody.
The only objection I have is to the principle of amending by reference. We have here an amendment to amend a section which is amending another Act, and it becomes impossible to follow the process. For the convenience of traders, would it not be possible to print in the actual section of the Principal Act as amended instead of this complicated arrangement?
I agree that it is very undesirable to have legislation by reference, but it is the only way in which it can be done in this case. I have to ask the House to take my word for it that the original section was practically worthless. The old Justices of Petty Sessions no longer exist, and this power is no longer necessary. As regards substituting Section 19 by putting in Section 81 of the Act in the form as we want it, I will consider that as the drafting point for the Report Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
Section 20 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move:
Before Section 21 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) In the definition of the expression "county" contained in the part of the Fourth Schedule to the Principal Act headed "Notes" the word "riding" shall be construed as referring only to a riding which is an administrative county and the said Schedule shall have effect accordingly.
(2) The part of the Fourth Schedule to the Principal Act headed "Notes" is hereby amended by the deletion of the following words: "The two constabulary districts of the county of Galway shall respectively be deemed to be counties for the purposes of this Act" now contained therein.
This is much worse than Section 19. In so far as amendment by reference goes, this is a very in-and-out and cross-type of reference indeed. The point is a simple one. The old Act comes to this: where you had two ridings in a county, but only one county council, that county council was bound to provide a set of local standards for each riding. The only county actually affected—the only county that is going to be cleared up by this section—is Galway, where there are two ridings and only one county council. In that case we consider it fair that there should be only one set of local standards provided. Where in other cases there are two ridings and two county councils, then the local authority for each riding will have to provide a set of standards for each area.
Amendment agreed to.
New Section agreed to.
Schedule and Title agreed to.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported with amendments. Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 18th April.
