Consideration of amendments 17 and 18— Section 2—is being resumed.
In Committee on Finance. - Control of Manufactures Bill, 1932— Committee Stage (Resumed).
Does the Minister accept amendment 17?
No. It is not necessary. It seems to me this amendment is provided for in the Bill.
Is it provided for in the following sub-section?
Paragraph (c) provides that no licence is required where a business was in existence on the first of June, 1932, and where the particular operation would have been in the ordinary course or formed part of such business as then carried on. Deputy McGilligan suggests in his amendment "or at the relevant time is in the ordinary course or forms part of an extension of such business as previously carried on." It is not clear what is meant there. If it merely means that the capacity of the business has been increased, then it is covered.
That is one reason; there is another. There are various forms of manufacture. The Minister may know that in respect of certain breweries, for example, there are brews of various strengths. I believe that under the Bill as it stands it would be illegal for a firm not registered here to make a further product stronger than any of those yet made. Take another case, the case of the Imperial Tobacco Company. If there was another use for tobacco it would not be possible for them to take up that line of business.
It might.
It would be an extension and it would not be possible to do it without a licence.
It would remain in the tobacco business. The point is if it started for instance, to make socks, it would be another matter.
The Minister misunderstands me. My point is that another use might be found for tobacco. For example, I do not know whether the Imperial Tobacco Company make cigars, but I know that Goodbody's did. If they were to take up the manufacture of cigars they would be prevented from doing the work under the Bill as it now stands.
I do not know whether the Minister is in agreement with what is intended by this amendment.
It is the same as what is contained in the Bill.
Let us take a brewery as an example. A brewery may be brewing a particular sort of commodity for years. Let us say that a new beer comes into fashion.
The Bill would cover anything that would occur in the ordinary course of the business.
But this would be a new beer.
Take another example. A brewery might be making certain casks and purchasing others. It would be in the nature of an ordinary extension of business if it proceeded to make those other casks. If the Minister is of opinion that a business may not only carry on strictly on its old lines, but that it would be enabled to carry out certain minor additions, it would be well to know that. For the sake of argument, it might be necessary for a brewer to take up the business of bottling. Changes in the nature of trade might make it necessary for him to bottle. The object of the amendment is to see that all normal extensions of business should be possible. If the Minister agrees with that, I think he should examine the wording of the section because I believe it is necessary to have it examined very carefully.
I will have the wording of the section examined. At any rate, that is the intention. A firm engaged in one industry can continue in that industry and embark upon any new development in association with it. For instance, a firm making socks might go in for fancy hosiery.
That is not clear from the section.
It is intended to be covered by "in the ordinary course... of such business." I will have the wording of the section re-examined.
Amendment 17, by leave, withdrawn.
I think the next amendment might be examined in the same light.
There is an entirely different principle there.
Not at all.
There is a big difference. That would enable a firm engaged in one business to stop that business and go into an entirely different business merely because the machinery might be suitable. For example, a firm engaged in flour milling could mill maize or rice or some other product which would be to some extent a different business. There are other circumstances which occur to one. Generally speaking, I think it is unlikely, in the case of an existing business which for any reason might want to get out of one line and get into another, that a licence would be refused. At the same time, I think the power to refuse should be retained.
Why?
In case some industrial damage might be done by the transfer. Again, the transfer might be carried out as part of a policy designed to put an Irish firm out of business. It applies only to foreign firms operating here. The position is that so far as these firms have been in existence here they are not being interfered with. In the case of new firms, a licence is required under the Bill. If an existing firm goes into new branches, similarly a licence should be required, otherwise the purpose of the measure is being refuse should be retained.
There is a marked difference between the two—a firm coming in and a firm here—and the Minister knows that.
Not altogether—sometimes. There are quite a number of firms here that are acclimatised as it were, but there are some foreign firms who were not here on 1st June, 1932.
There is at least one firm which has been here for a very long period and the majority of the shareholders are resident in this country. It has grown up out of this country. I am sure it is not alone in that respect.
Take the case, for instance, of a foundry engaged in making a particular type of castings for which it has a market now. It does not make another sort of castings at all. But, in the course of trade, the market which it has for its present castings might fail, and it might be possible with its plant to make a different sort of castings. I think from what the Minister said he would regard that as a continuation of the same business. I should like to hear what he thinks.
I would not like to say it was. For example, if there were a foreign firm engaged in the manufacture of women's ready-made clothing, and that firm decided to get out of that business and get into the making of men's ready-made clothing, I think there would be a case for stopping them, in so far as men's ready-made clothing is an over-crowded industry in certain branches at present. In so far as a firm merely develops and carries on the business carried on on 1st June, there will be no interference, even if there are certain developments arising out of changing fashions or changing methods of production, but in so far as it enters into a new business I think it should become subject to the Bill.
Take a factory which the Minister knows about in Cork—a very big factory. They have to apply for a licence and will not do it.
I see no reason why they should decline.
I take it that the Minister is anxious that in a number of cases there should be applications from foreign firms to come in and establish industries. I gather from the optimistic way he has spoken that firms can hardly be kept off the wires, there are so many applying. Suppose a firm comes in here, even if they get a licence to manufacture a certain type of article, in the first case, if experience shows them that is not the proper article for them to manufacture but that they can use their machinery for other articles, they are not going to be allowed to do it—at least they would have no guarantee. That is likely to act as a deterrent and possibly work against the policy that the Minister professes.
I do not think so.
Amendment 18, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 19:
In sub-section (1), paragraph (d), page 3, line 8, to delete all words after the figures "1932" to the end of the paragraph.
That is consequential upon amendment 17.
Amendment 19 refers to the case of the individual and amendment 17 to the case of the company. Take, for instance, an individual engaged on a poultry farm down on the Shannon who, as a consequence of the flooding, decides to branch into ducks, would that be outside the scope of his business?
I have explained the intention. It is obvious that if the wording of paragraph (c) does not express the intention adequately that a similar alteration will have to be made in paragraph (d). I shall have the matter considered.
I should like to impress on the Minister that it is very definitely limiting the scope of individuals. I think it ought to be the Articles of Association.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 20:
In sub-section (1) (e), line 13, to delete the words "and in accordance with."
I accept that amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 21, on behalf of Deputy McGilligan:
In sub-section (1) (f), line 24, after the word "representative" to insert the words "or trustee of the will" and after the word "administration," line 26, to insert the words "or in execution of the trust of such will."
Is there objection to this?
Yes.
What is the objection?
The section is intended to provide for the comparatively brief interval during which an executor or administrator carries on the administration of a business. A trusteeship might last for years, during, say, the minority of the beneficiaries under the will, and the amendment might go a long way to defeat the purpose of the Bill.
If a trusteeship is established in the case of minors, are minors to be deprived of the business? I know of one person who came into this country 50 or 60 years ago and there are great-grandchildren here.
I would like to draw attention to amendment 22 (a) which I am moving to deal with the case of trustees.
That deals with a company. What Deputy McGilligan has in mind is the case of trustees in respect of property. The person I have in mind died some eight or ten years ago. There is a fairly extensive business and there are great-grandchildren here. I suppose grandchildren would be regarded as coming within this category. By reason of the fact that their grand-father or great-grandfather was not born in the country they would be practically estopped from entering into the possession of his property. A trusteeship would be required to keep it running in that case, and there may be other such cases.
That is the intention in the Bill. If the property passes by inheritance into the hands of a person who is not a national of Saorstát Eireann then a licence is required and amendment 22 (a) provides that in a case where the property is in the hands of trustees the interpretation that is to be given to that question of nationality will be in relation to the actual persons who are getting the benefit of the trusteeship.
In that case, persons would be disposed to leave it to their grandchildren, not their children, because their grandchildren would be nationals.
We hope to make it possible to acquire nationality.
There is no means of getting it at present.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move, on behalf of Deputy McGilligan, amendment 22:
In sub-section (2) (a), line 46, to delete the word "such" and substitute "a" and in the same line after the word "representative" to insert the words "for the time being."
What is the objection to this amendment?
I do not think it makes the slightest difference to the Bill. If the Deputy presses it, I am willing to accept it.
Very good. Accept it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 22a:
To add at the end of sub-section (2) the following:—
(c) where a person is for the time being entitled to the income arising from any shares in a body corporate held by a trustee, such person shall, so long as he continues to be entitled to such income, be deemed to be the beneficial owner of such shares, and
(d) where two or more persons are each for the time being entitled to a proportionate part of the income arising from shares in a particular body corporate or from such shares and other property held by a trustee, each of such persons, so long as he continues to be entitled to a proportion of such income, shall be deemed to be the beneficial owner of a corresponding proportion of such shares.
This is intended to deal with the case of a business which was in the hands of trustees, and to provide that, in such cases, the beneficial owner shall be deemed to be the person entitled to the income arising.
Yes, but it is shares again. Presumably, the Minister means Stock Exchange transactions?
Yes.
What about the private individual?
Paragraph (d) says:
"Where two or more persons are each for the time being entitled to a proportionate part of the income arising from shares in a particular body corporate or from such shares and other property held by a trustee, each of such persons, so long as he continues to be entitled to a proportion of such income, shall be deemed to be the beneficial owner of a corresponding proportion of such shares."
Do shares in that case refer to a body corporate?
Yes, shares in a body corporate.
Would the Minister look into the other point as to these one-tenth shares or one-twelfth shares, the sort of thing that occurs in wills and so forth?
I think those are covered by (d) but I will look into it.
I do not think so. I think that refers to a body corporate.
Amendment agreed to.
The following amendments stood on the Paper:
23. In sub-section (3), line 67, after the word "thereof" to insert the words "in the case of a first conviction to a fine not exceeding £10 or in the case of a second or subsequent conviction."—John Good; Henry Morgan Dockrell.
24. To delete sub-section (4).— Earnán de Blaghd.
25. In sub-section (4), line 5, after the word "section" to insert the words "and prima facie evidence of such offence has been given."— Risteárd Ua Maolchatha.
26. In sub-section (4), to delete all words after the word "charged," line 8, to the end of sub-section.— Patrick McGilligan.
I would like to press on the Minister that a lot of these convictions would probably be for offences of which the people were unaware. They would probably be only technical offences, and I would ask him to accept the smaller amount suggested, which, I believe, will be quite adequate.
The fact that a maximum fine of £50 is inserted in the Bill does not mean that on every occasion on which an offence is committed that fine will be imposed. I take it that if a man were charged with a purely technical offence, a very small fine would likely be imposed, but I would draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that prosecutions can only be at the suit of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and the Deputy may be sure that prosecutions will not take place purely on technicalities. They will only arise in cases where, in the opinion of the Minister, there is a deliberate attempt to evade the terms of the Act, and, obviously, the principle proposed here is that there should be as it were a first offence punishment and a second offence punishment. That is what is in the section as it stands—a fine of £50, as a maximum, with a fine of £10 per day if the offence is a continuous one. That is the maximum fine and it is a usual provision inserted in Bills of this kind, but, in so far as it is unlikely that prosecutions would ever arise except where there is a deliberate attempt at evasion of the terms of the Act, I think the maximum fine should be retained at that figure.
I entirely accept what the Minister has said, but I would like to point out to him that the fear of a thing is often worse than a thing itself, and the manufacturer, in a distant country, reading the terms of this Bill, and, seeing the size of the fine is not likely to be impressed with the possibility of manufacturing in this country. It is really from the point of view of the effect on a person at a distance who reads a Bill such as this that I ask the Minister to consider it.
We want that particular manufacturer to be impressed with the fact that he requires a licence if he is proposing to engage in the processes of manufacture here.
I would point out to the Minister that if there is a fine of £50 prescribed in any Act of Parliament, there could be no such thing as a minimum fine imposed in that case. The justice or judicial officer imposing the fine would have to impose a pretty substantial fine and then make a recommendation that it should be reduced, which would mean additional trouble and cost.
In so far as prosecutions will not take place except in cases of a major offence, the fine is not inadequate.
I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 23, by leave, withdrawn.
I think the Minister ought to accept either the amendment in my name or one or other or both of the next. I think the section as it stands is far too drastic. It is the sort of thing that ought not to be embodied in legislation. I presume there will be no such case as officials setting out to persecute any individual, but it leaves it possible for an individual to be given tremendous trouble. He has simply to be charged and he is put to all this trouble. I think the sub-section should be struck out and that the prosecution should proceed in the ordinary way, or, if the Minister is not willing to agree to that, he should agree to one of the others. It is a bad type of section to have in legislation.
All the matters to be proved are in the special knowledge of the person prosecuted. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for the Minister to prove them independently. I submit that the paragraph throws no undue burden on the person prosecuted. Amendment 25 suggests that prima facie evidence must be given, but it is precisely in relation to the giving of such evidence that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has the difficulty. Amendment 26 is unnecessary as the words proposed to be deleted merely explain the earlier part of the sub-section. I am astonished, however, that Deputy Blythe should move to delete the sub-section because I copied it from him. This sub-section is adopted from the Livestock Breeding Act, 1925, and it constituted the precedent we followed. It seemed to me to be a good precedent so we incorporated it in this Bill.
The Livestock Breeding Act is a very different proposition from this. In that, you want to get rid of certain rubbish, but this is a different proposition, and the businessman will not take a politician's word that he will exercise discretion because he is seldom known to exercise discretion.
Of course, we are going to change all that.
I am thinking of the change that has taken place and which will be present to the mind of the businessman. He will say that if Deputy Blythe were Minister for Finance we might expect commonsense but "Lord save us, look what's in office now."
The Minister must admit that some of these may raise a great deal of trouble in their actual proof in court. Take paragraph (b). If there were a large number of shareholders and the question of seven consecutive years and all that had to be proved—I do not say it could not be done—a very considerable amount of trouble will be caused. Also, if, after a lapse of years, it had been proved that a particular thing was in a certain line of business, I do not think that a person should be put to all this trouble without even prima facie evidence being given against him.
I would submit to the Minister that the number of different and detailed things covered here, and which can be very difficult of proof, ought not to be thrown on a person engaged in manufacture here without at least prima facie evidence of the charge being submitted, as well as the charge itself. It seems to me that, under the section as it stands, the Minister need simply throw out a piece of paper, saying "This man is committing an offence under this particular Act" and stop there and make no case at all. In fairness to himself, and to the people engaged in manufacture here, there should, at least, where a charge is brought against a man in business that would put him out of the business he is in, be prima facie evidence brought forward to substantiate the charge. It is only when the Justice is satisfied that there was prima facie evidence that the man ought to be called on to go through the process of proving some of these very involved things.
The deletion of this sub-section would make it practically impossible for the Minister to administer the Act at all. All the matters which arise are in the special knowledge of the person prosecuted and it is precisely on the matter of producing prima facie evidence that the difficulty exists. The Bill is so worded that it shall not be lawful for any person to do any of the things mentioned, carry on manufacturing enterprise, etc., except under the conditions mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g). If a person is charged with carrying on business without a licence, and the Minister establishes, to the satisfaction of the Court, that no licence has been issued, it is for the person then to demonstrate that he comes under this section and that a licence is not required. Only he can prove that but the Minister could not disprove it.
He has to bring up 14,000 shareholders and prove that they were born in Ireland or that they have other qualifications under the Bill. It is absolutely an impossibility, with shares changing hands every day
It is one of the——
Drawbacks of the Bill!
——difficulties that will have to be contended with, but I want the Deputy to bear this in mind, that it relates only to new companies which may be established.
No.
And it is for them to make the necessary provision.
Suppose a certain firm were to start making a new liqueur. They will want to show that their share register possesses one share more of an Irish national.
They would not. If the company which the Deputy had in mind engaged in some form of business which it is not now engaged in, it would only have to demonstrate that that was in the ordinary course of business carried on after 1st June. The question of who owned the shares, whatever their nationality, therefore would not arise. In so far as the business is carried on on 1st June it does not matter. Companies at present owned by nationals entering on a new business after that date have got to take the necessary precautions that the ownership will not pass into the hands of non-nationals.
A private person cannot prevent the sale of shares.
Why should they sell?
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 3.
(1) Any person who carries on or proposes to carry on in Saorstát Eireann any business by way of trade or for the purpose of gain may make application to the Minister for a licence (in this Act referred to as a new manufacture licence) authorising him to do in the course or as part of such business such one or more of the things which may be authorised to be done under a new manufacture licence as he may specify in such application.
(2) Every application under this section for a new manufacture licence shall be in the prescribed form and be made in the prescribed manner and shall contain the prescribed particulars.
(3) Every person who applies under this section for a new manufacture licence shall, when required by the Minister so to do, furnish to the Minister all such information as the Minister may require for the consideration of such application.
The following amendments appeared on the Paper:
27. In sub-section (1), line 13, to delete the word "Minister" and substitute the words "the Commission."—John Good; Henry Morgan Dockrell.
28. In sub-section (3), lines 22 and 23, to delete the word "Minister" and substitute in each case the words "the Commission."—John Good; Henry Morgan Dockrell.
29. In sub-section (3), after the word "such," line 23, to insert the word "prescribed."—Patrick McGilligan.
I take it that you, sir, will rule these out of order, but there is a point which I wish to make on the section. Sub-section (2) of that section states:—
Every application under this section for a new manufacture licence shall be in the prescribed form and be made in the prescribed manner and shall contain the prescribed particulars.
I should like to ask the Minister to set forth in a schedule to this Bill the reasons for that. I do not see why there should not be a schedule to the Bill published in the form of questions which a manufacturer making an application will have to answer. I take it that we are not afraid or ashamed of the questions that will be asked of a manufacturer who is thinking of setting up a new business. The sooner he knew what he was faced with the better. He should be able to take up the Bill and the schedule and to consider the questions that he will have to answer in the schedule, presumably in a manner satisfactory to the Minister, so that he can get his licence. I suggest to the Minister that he should put in the schedule all the questions that will be asked.
A schedule is not necessary. The sub-section states that every application for a new manufacture licence shall be in the prescribed form and be made in the prescribed manner and shall contain the prescribed particulars. Section 1 states that the expression "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Minister under this Act, and Section 11 states that "the Minister may by order make regulations in relation to any matter or thing referred to in this Act as prescribed or to be prescribed." All such regulations shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas after they are made and if a resolution is passed by either House annulling such resolution, it shall be annulled, so that the prescribed conditions and regulations will be laid before the House.
I presume the Minister is not replying to amendment 29.
No. Amendment 29 is one that could not be accepted. It would not be possible to put down in the prescribed form all the information that might be required. The amendment would suggest that we should actually consider beforehand in relation to any particular application that might come along the type of information in respect of that application that we might require. That could not be done. Again I have adopted the precedent established by the Road Transport Act of 1931. The section is copied from that.
The Minister is in danger of losing his identity altogether.
And Deputies opposite are in danger of forgetting what they have done when in office.
I think the Minister might put in the word "prescribed" here. He knows himself that this Act contains extraordinary opportunities for, if you like, tyrannical action. It gives enormous powers to the Minister. I think that where information is going to be required it should be along lines that are published, and it would be easy for the Minister to prescribe the types of information that he would require.
It seems to me that it would be impossible for the Minister to prescribe beforehand all the information that he would require in respect of any particular application. If the word "prescribed" were put in there it would be necessary to publish a long list of all types of information that would be required. No Minister would be able to safeguard himself against all possible contingencies in that way and the result would be that no effective safeguard would be effected at all.
I wish to raise the point as to whether there is anything in this measure that safeguards information of a very confidential character given by a manufacturer in such circumstances.
I do not understand the Deputy.
I understand that certain information is obtained in connection with income tax and in connection with the census of production and that there are special statutory precautions in regard to the safeguarding of that information. Information in regard to the details of a manufacturer's business, certain very confidential information, may be asked for under this Bill.
There is no compulsion on anyone to give it. This will relate to foreign companies anxious to establish themselves here and if they object to giving information they need not make the application.
That is not the point. The point is if, having given the information, it will be treated as confidential.
Undoubtedly.
Amendments negatived.
Section 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 4.
If any person in furnishing any information in pursuance of a requisition of the Minister under the immediately preceding section makes any statement which is false or misleading in any material respect, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
Amendment 30 ruled out of order.
Amendment 31, to insert the word "wilfully" in line 27 after the word "section" is not necessary. The word is implied by the section.
Amendment 32 not moved.
Section 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 5.
(1) Whenever an application is made to the Minister under this Act for a new manufacture licence the Minister may, in his absolute discretion, either—
(a) grant to the applicant a new manufacture licence to do all the things specified in such application; or
(b) grant to the applicant a new manufacture licence to do some or one only of the things specified in such application; or
(c) refuse to grant such licence.
(2) Every new manufacture licence granted by the Minister shall—
(a) be in the prescribed form; and
(b) be expressed and operate to authorise the person who is for the time being the holder of the licence, so long as such licence is in force, to do in the course or as part of a business carried on by way of trade or for the purposes of gain such one or more of the following things as may be specified in such licence, that is to say:—
(i) to make any article, material, or substance or any part of any article, material, or substance of any class or kind specified in such licence;
(ii) to alter, repair, ornament and finish any article, material, or substance or any part of any article, material, or substance of any class or kind specified in such licence;
(iii) to adapt for sale any article, material, or substance or any part of any article, material or substance of any class or kind specified in such licence; and
(c) be and be expressed to be granted subject to the condition that the holder of such licence shall furnish the Minister with such information in his possession or procurement as the Minister may from time to time require on any matter which is in the opinion of the Minister relevant to the licence; and
(d) be and be expressed to be granted subject to such other terms and conditions as the Minister thinks proper and states in such licence.
Amendment 33 ruled out of order.
Amendment 34 not moved.
What is the necessity for the words "in his absolute discretion" in sub-section (1)?
To make quite clear what the section means.
It is quite clear without them.
I shall consider the matter.
Amendment 35 ruled out of order.
Amendments 36 and 37 not moved.
I move amendment 38: To delete sub-section (2) (c).
I am accepting this amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment 39 not moved.
I move amendments 40 and 41:
To delete sub-section (2) (d).
In sub-section (2) (d), lines 6 and 7, to delete the words "the Minister thinks proper and states" and substitute the words "are prescribed."
I think that it is not a good plan to have the licence subject to conditions. I presume the licence will be a licence to manufacture a certain article. As the section stands it might be that a manufacturer shall be licensed to manufacture a certain article, and that he shall pay certain wages or that he shall have John Smith as foreman. It gives extraordinary power to add conditions of that kind to the licence. In my view the licence should be a licence to carry on a trade defining that trade as strictly as you like—to manufacture shirt buttons out of bone or anything you like, but once that is done a person should be allowed to carry on his business in the ordinary way.
It is intended to take power under the paragraph to impose conditions designed to secure that the full benefit from the establishment of the industry would be felt here. In the case of a readymade clothes manufacturer it may be that a condition would be imposed that the whole of the bulk of the cloth used would be of Irish manufacture. If he required stationery we might require that the stationery would be manufactured here.
We have required in all cases as a sort of statutory condition that the holder of the licence shall furnish whatever information may be required. In certain cases we might attach a condition relating to the location of a particular factory. A foreigner might say that he was ready to engage in, say, Dublin in the manufacture of readymade clothing. The position, we would say then, is that there are more than enough there already, but that in some town in Donegal or Mayo or perhaps Kerry the proposal could be considered and therefore the condition attaching to the licence would be that the factory could be established in some such district. It is almost impossible to know in advance all the conditions likely to arise, but generally speaking the terms and conditions would be such as to secure the greatest possible amount of employment for our people and to secure to the greatest possible extent that the raw materials for the industry would be procurable in the country. In certain cases also a condition prescribing a maximum output might be necessary. A firm might come in with a proposal to establish itself here. We might feel that it would be good to have it here but that it might lead to a monopoly of the market—that it would establish a big plant and proceed with price-cutting arrangements and thereby put out of business the existing Irish firms. In so far as there was room for it we would let them in but making it clear that they were coming in under overriding conditions to prevent such a thing occurring. In respect of the various applications which in fact have been received already, apart altogether from those which are likely to be forthcoming in the future, they are such as to make it impossible to put in any more than is there already.
It was interesting to hear the Minister, as his explanation shows this clause to be such a perfect example of what should not be there.
Amendments 40 and 41 withdrawn.
Agreed that Section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 6.
If any person who is the holder of a new manufacture licence fails or neglects or refuses to comply with the terms and conditions subject to which such licence was granted, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
I move amendment 42.
In line 9 after the word "licence" to insert the words "after notice in writing has been served upon him by the Minister."
Is there an objection?
Yes, that could not be accepted.
If a man fails to submit the necessary report or information, he will be liable?
"If the holder of the licence refuses to comply with the terms of the conditions under which the licence was granted he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction thereof," to the penalty.
I consider that something should be done to draw the attention of the manufacturer to the fact that he is committing an offence.
Surely the obligation is on him to see that he does not commit an offence.
Amendment 42 withdrawn.
Amendments 43 and 44 not moved.
Agreed that Section 6 stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 7.
Where a new manufacture licence authorising the doing of a thing in the course or as part of a business is in force, and the ownership of such business has been transferred, whether by act of the parties or operation of law, from the licensee under such new manufacture licence to another person, the following provisions shall take effect, that is to say:—
(a) such person may apply to the Minister to transfer such licence to him, and on such application being made the Minister shall, unless such transfer would be a contravention of the conditions of such licence, transfer such licence to such person;
(b) where such new manufacture licence is so transferred it shall be deemed to have been transferred as on the date on which such business is transferred.
Amendments 45 and 46 not moved.
Agreed that Section 7 stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 8.
A new manufacture licence authorising the doing of a particular thing in the course or as part of a business shall cease to be in force on the cesser of the carrying on of such business or the revocation of such licence or the refusal of the Minister to transfer such licence under the immediately preceding section whichever first happens.
I move amendment 47:—
Before Section 8 to insert a new section as follows:—
A new manufacture licence shall in all cases be granted to a person or persons becoming entitled to a business or a share therein by a bequest or on the intestacy of a national of Saorstát Eireann.
I think the Minister said that no person would be adversely affected under this Bill. I would like to ask the Minister what he thinks of this amendment 47.
It would obviously defeat the whole purpose of the Bill. We had a discussion on this already.
On Number 34.
Apparently then a person may find that while he can carry on the business and not be adversely affected, he cannot bequeath it?
Amendment 47 withdrawn.
Amendments 48 and 49 not moved.
Agreed that Section 8 stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 9.
(1) The Minister may at any time alter or revoke a new manufacture licence upon the application of the holder of such licence.
(2) The Minister may at any time, without any such application, revoke a new manufacture licence, if the holder of such licence has been convicted of an offence under any section of this Act.
(3) The Minister shall not revoke or alter a new manufacture licence save under and in accordance with this section.
Amendment 50 not moved.
I move amendment 51:
To add at the end of sub-section (2) the words "and the Court has so recommended."
I think that this is an amendment which the Minister might agree to. A firm should have a certain amount of protection before it is prevented from starting. He will have an idea of the nature of the offence and so on and the circumstances will be before the Court and the Minister will be represented by his Counsel or will have an opportunity of being represented by his Counsel.
It is bringing in a lot of other things.
Surely nothing would come under it except the question of whether or not the offence is bad. It would be wrong to seize on merely a technical offence and close down a business. Under this the licence should only be withdrawn if the offence is serious.
I will consider that.
Amendment 51, by leave, withdrawn.
Agreed that Section 9 stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 10.
(1) The Minister may from time to time serve a notice in writing on any body corporate which by way of trade or for purposes of gain carries on a business to which this section applies requiring such body corporate within twenty-eight days after the service of such notice to send to the Minister a return giving information in relation to such one or more of the following matters as may be specified in such notice, that is to say:—
(a) the objects of such body corporate;
(b) the date of the establishment of such body corporate;
(c) if such body corporate was in existence on the 1st day of June, 1932, the nature of the business actually carried on by it on that date and the amount of its issue capital at that date;
(d) the amount of the issued capital of such body corporate at the date of the return;
(e) the names and addresses of the persons holding shares in such body corporate at the date of the return and the respective number and nominal value of such shares held by each such person;
(f) the names of the directors or other persons controlling such body corporate;
(g) such other matters relating to such body corporate as may be specified in such notice.
(2) The Minister may from time to time serve a notice in writing on any person who by way of trade or for purposes of gain carries on a business to which this section applies requiring such person within twenty-eight days after the service of such notice to send to the Minister a return giving information in relation to such one or more of the following matters as may be specified in such notice, that is to say:—
(a) the objects of such business;
(b) the date of the establishment of such business;
(c) if such business was being carried on on the 1st day of June, 1932, the nature of business as carried on at that date and the name and address or names and addresses of the person or persons by whom it was beneficially owned at that date;
(d) the name and address or the names and addresses of the person or persons by whom it is owned at the date of the return, specifying in the case of each such person whether he is or is not a national of Saorstát Eireann;
(e) such other matters relating to such business as may be specified in such notice.
(3) The Minister may from time to time serve a notice in writing on any body corporate (in this section referred to as a holding body corporate) which holds any shares in a body corporate carrying on a business to which this section applies requiring such holding body corporate within twenty-eight days after the service of such notice to send to the Minister a return stating the issued capital of such holding body corporate at the date of the return, the names and addresses of the shareholders in such holding body corporate and the number and nominal value of the shares held by each shareholder.
(4) The Minister may from time to time serve a notice in writing on any person who holds any shares in a body corporate carrying on a business to which this section applies requiring such person within twenty-eight days after the service of such notice to send to the Minister a return stating whether he is or is not the beneficial owner of such shares and, in respect of such (if any) of the said shares as are held by him for other persons, the names and addresses of such other persons, specifying in the case of each such other person the number and nominal value of the shares held by him and whether he is or is not a national of Saorstát Eireann.
(5) The Minister may from time to time serve a notice in writing on any person who holds any shares in a holding body corporate requiring such person to state whether he is or is not the beneficial owner of the shares so held by him, and in respect of such (if any) of the said shares as are held by him for other persons, the names and addresses of such other persons, specifying in the case of each such other person the number and nominal value of the shares held for him and whether he is or is not a national of Saorstát Eireann.
(6) If any person on whom a notice is served under this section either refuses or neglects to make a return in accordance with such notice or makes a return which is false or misleading in any material respect, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
(7) This section applies to every business which includes any one or more of the following things, the making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing or adapting for sale of any article, material or substance or any part of any article, material or substance.
(8) A notice under this section may be served by delivering it to the person to whom it is addressed or by leaving it with a person over the age of sixteen years at the premises where the person to whom it is addressed carries on business or by sending it by registered post to the person to whom it is addressed at the premises where such person carries on business.
I move amendment 52:
To delete sub-section (1).
If the Minister will not accept it I will withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 53 and 60 not moved.
Amendment 54 not moved.
Amendments 55 and 56, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 56a: In sub-section (1), (c) and (d) to delete in lines 56 and 57 the word "capital" and substitute the word "shares."—(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.)
Agreed to.
Amendments 57 and 58 not moved.
I move amendment 59:
In sub-section (1) to add at the end of paragraph (g) the words "and are required for the purpose of determining the beneficial ownership, the nature, or the date of establishment of such business."
I am accepting this amendment in the name of Deputy McGilligan, and I am also accepting the following amendment, No. 63, in the name of the same Deputy:
In sub-section (2) to add at the end of paragraph (c) the words "and are required for the purpose of determining the beneficial ownership, the nature, or the date of establishment of such business."
Amendments agreed to.
Amendments 61 and 62 not moved.
Amendments 64 not moved.
I move amendment 64a, which is consequential:
In sub-section (3), line 32, to delete the word "capital" and substitute the word "shares."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
Sections 11, 12 and 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment 73: Before Section 14 to insert a new section as follows:—
This Act shall not apply to the process of milling wheat or to the adapting for sale at a mill any product of wheat milled at such mill."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question—"That the Title of the Bill be—An Act to make provision for controlling the carrying on of manufactures in Saorstát Eireann"—put.
If the Minister would substitute the word "handicapping" for "controlling" we might accept it.
The Committee divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 47.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Clery, Micheál.
- Colbert, James.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Everett, James.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Gormley, Francis.
- Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Lynch, James B.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Norton, William.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas J.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Powell, Thomas F.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Níl
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Brasier, Brooke.
- Broderick, William Jos.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margaret.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Davis, Michael.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McDonogh, Fred.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Brien, Eugene P.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- Desmond, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Gorey, Denis John.
- Hassett, John J.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Kiersey, John.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reidy, James.
- Roddy, Martin.
- White, John.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, July 12th.