Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Oct 1932

Vol. 44 No. 1

Control of Manufactures Bill, 1932—From the Seanad.

The following Message was received from the Seanad:—Seanad Eireann does not insist on amendments Nos. 1, 4 and 25 to 28 inclusive made by it to the Control of Manufactures Bill, 1932, with which Dáil Eireann has disagreed:

It disagrees with the amendment made by Dáil Eireann consequential on its agreement to Amendment No. 11 made by Seanad Eireann, in lieu of which it has made the following amendment:—

Section 2, sub-section (2). The letter and brackets "(b)" deleted in line 45 and the letter and brackets "(c)" substituted therefor.

It has made the following further amendment to the Bill, consequential on the agreement of Dáil Eireann to Amendment No. 10 made by Seanad Eireann:—

Section 2, sub-section (4). The word, letters and brackets "(g) and (h)" deleted in line 27 and the word, letters and brackets "(g), (h) and (i)" substituted therefor.

It insists on Amendments Nos. 15 and 16:

to which the agreement of Dáil Eireann is desired.

The Dáil went into Committee.

Mr. Lemass

It is proposed to recommend that the Dáil agrees with the Seanad in respect of the amendment in lieu of amendment 11 and also in respect of the further amendment made by the Seanad to amendment 10. In respect of the two main amendments on which the Seanad insisted, amendments 15 and 16, I have decided to recommend to the Dáil that these amendments should be accepted in principle. Some alteration in the wording was necessary because the actual amendment inserted by the Seanad is meaningless and if passed, would have no effect whatsoever. I am moving therefore that these amendments be accepted:—

Amendment in lieu.

1. That the Amendment in lieu made by Seanad Eireann be agreed to.

Further Amendment.

2. That the further Amendment made by Seanad Eireann be agreed to.

Amendment No. 15.

3. That Seanad Amendment No. 15 to which Dáil Eireann has disagreed and upon which Seanad Eireann has insisted as amended by the deletion of the words "contained in regulations made under this Act" and the substitution of the words "to be prescribed" be agreed to.

Amendment No. 16.

4. That Seanad Amendment No. 16 to which Dáil Eireann has disagreed and upon which Seanad Eireann has insisted as amended by the deletion of the words "contained in regulations made under this Act" and the substitution of the words "to be prescribed" be agreed to.

Mr. McGilligan

Are we in Committee?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

These amendments have then to be discussed and the alteration in the wording is proposed to be taken as consequential.

An Ceann Comhairle

Paragraphs 1 and 2 of page 219 are agreed to, but paragraphs 3 and 4 will necessitate alteration. The first two amendments are accepted.

Mr. McGilligan

I want to make the point as to whether it is possible to accept at this stage amendments in paragraphs 3 and 4 which are being phrased as consequential amendments. We had a discussion on this point on 5th August; the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was in charge of this Bill. The Minister described himself as having taken considerable interest in it having had control of the Bill. In the end he accepted the amendment proposed in this House as a necessary and substantial one. He accepted really as a consequential point what had come from the Seanad, namely, paragraph (b). It is now proposed to wipe out the reference to paragraph (b) though the discussion previously on the Bill had proceeded on the basis that certain relaxations applied to Section 2 (1) (b). It is now proposed to cut that out. I suggest that it is much more than a consequential amendment and one that should not be accepted at this late stage.

Mr. Lemass

It is merely a drafting amendment.

Mr. McGilligan

It is not a matter of drafting at all.

Mr. Lemass

In my opinion, it is merely a drafting amendment.

Mr. McGilligan

It was also said that it did not matter whether that was left in the Bill or whether it was changed. That was what the Minister said. Now the removal of paragraph (b) means a considerable limitation of the Bill and to that I object.

Mr. Lemass

I think the amendment is necessary in order to clarify the purpose of the Bill. I am afraid I cannot see the point that the Deputy is arguing.

Mr. McGilligan

I am putting the matter as a point of order. May I put my point again? The Bill comes to this House and contains certain restrictions on manufacturers coming into this country. Section 2 (1) (b) of that Bill allows certain conditions of control, but by a later section these are considerably relaxed in relation to that paragraph. Through the Report Stage of the Bill in this House and right through the Seanad where paragraph (b) was very often mentioned and back again to this House that paragraph was the subject of discussion for at least a half hour of the time. It is now proposed as a consequential amendment to remove the reference to paragraph (b) and have this relaxation applied also to paragraph (c). As I say, that matter was already discussed in the Dáil and at that time the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs said:—"I agree that it does apply to (b) and (c) as the section comes in." The Minister in charge of the Bill said that there was never a Bill which had been so definitely considered by the Executive Council as this Bill had been; he said he had taken the Bill under his own charge and that he knew what he was speaking about. He goes now and says that this section should apply to (c) and (b); but as a consequential amendment it is now proposed to wipe out (c) and (b).

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a matter of order but a question of interpretation.

Mr. McGilligan

I am putting it as a point of order that nothing but a consequential amendment can come in at this point. Unless it is a consequential amendment it cannot come before us.

An Ceann Comhairle

Well, it has come from the Seanad; it is not our business.

Mr. McGilligan

Are we bound by the Seanad rulings?

An Ceann Comhairle

Certainly not.

Mr. McGilligan

What I am now asking for is your ruling as to whether this is consequential or not.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am accepting the interpretation that it is a consequential amendment and in order.

Amendment No. 1 agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

The next amendment is as follows:—

That Seanad Amendment No. 15 to which Dáil Eireann has disagreed and upon which Seanad Eireann has insisted as amended by the deletion of the words "contained in regulations made under this Act" and the substitution of the words "to be prescribed" be agreed to.

Mr. McGilligan

Will the Minister explain what this amounts to?

Mr. Lemass

The Seanad desired that the conditions under which the Minister would issue licences, or the conditions which would attach to a licence when issued, should be made subject to regulations. At least, I presume that is what the Seanad desires. They passed an amendment deleting the words "at his discretion" which were the words in the Bill and inserted the words "subject to the provisions contained in regulations made under this Act." They did not say who was to make the regulations, and, in fact, the Bill gave no power to make regulations to anybody.

Mr. McGilligan

The Bill gave no power?

Mr. Lemass

To make regulations. The amendment did not say by whom the regulations were to be made.

Mr. McGilligan

Has the Minister the Bill there?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

What does Section 11 mean?

Mr. Lemass

Section 11, which is now Section 12, by the way, reads:—

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.

It is quite clear that the section does not give the Minister power to make regulations of the kind contemplated by the Seanad, but if the amendment which I suggest to the Seanad amendment is carried, namely, to insert the words "to be prescribed," Section 12 comes into operation and the obvious purpose of the Seanad is given effect to. It is a mere drafting amendment.

Mr. McGilligan

I understood the Minister to say that he is accepting the principle of the Seanad amendment and that he was trying to put it into a better form by this.

Mr. Lemass

Definitely, if the Seanad amendment passes in its present form, there will be no power to make regulations nor does it say by whom they are to be made.

Mr. McGilligan

That I will not contest. If there are regulations to be made, it is immaterial to the Seanad, or to those of us on this side of the House who desire regulations, by whom they are made so long as they are to be made.

Mr. Lemass

I expect that is true.

Mr. McGilligan

Where you have a clause saying that the Minister may make regulations and the Minister is a specifically defined Minister, I think there is going to be a link between the two. The principle is accepted that these matters are to be subject to regulations and these matters are therefore to come before the House. Is that now proposed by the alteration that the Minister moves? The Seanad did move that these licences should not be given in the absolute discretion of the Minister but should be given "in accordance with provisions contained in regulations made under this Act." And the intent was definitely to tie that up with what is in the copy of the Bill that we have as passed by the Dáil—Section 11. The Minister now cuts out the phrase "provision contained in regulations made under this Act" and puts in "in accordance with provisions to be prescribed" and when we turn to Section 11 we find that "the Minister may, by order, make regulations." Is that "may" equal to "shall" in that context?

Mr. Lemass

In effect, it is, because, of course, no licence could be issued if regulations had not been prescribed.

Mr. McGilligan

That is what I want to ensure but I cannot yet assume that that is so. These licences are to be given "in accordance with provisions to be prescribed." There is no obligation to prescribe. We turn then to the regulations section and it says "the Minister may by order make regulations." If that "may" is not compulsory, then the purpose of the Seanad amendment is not being met.

Mr. Lemass

The position is that no licence can be issued until regulations have been prescribed.

Mr. McGilligan

Why not? What the Seanad wanted, and what those of us here who moved much the same amendment, wanted, was not that regulations should be prescribed but that regulations when prescribed would come before this House. That is what was wanted. Is it possible to have a licence issued in accordance with certain things prescribed, and not published and not coming before this House?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister then assures us that the regulations referred to in Section 11 are compulsory?

Mr. Lemass

I am not assuring the Deputy of anything. I am telling him what is the obvious meaning of it. I cannot help him to understand it.

Mr. McGilligan

It is not a question of helping anybody to understand. It is a question of explanation and the Minister must know what he is moving. I am going to suggest to the House, in the absence of a definite assurance from the Minister, that we adhere, despite the suspicion which has been cast upon us by the Minister, to the Seanad phraseology, which, to my mind, is stronger and better to effect the purpose of getting matters, in accordance with regulations which may be made in the Minister's office and hidden there, brought before the House. It is publicity we want and not the order of things in a secretive way, and, unless some assurance is given in regard to these regulations, I am going to suggest to the House that it should not accept the amendment by the Minister in lieu of the Seanad amendment and that they should disagree with this proposal.

Mr. Lemass

That is just the type of suggestion I would expect from the Deputy. The Seanad amendment concerned does not require regulations to be made by anybody in particular and the Seanad presumably did not care whether they were made or not. I take it that that is his attitude—let us have regulations but it does not matter a rap who makes them or what is in them, so long as we carry our point. This is probably what is known as constructive opposition in the columns of the "United Irishman" but it sounds like sheer nonsense to anybody on this side of the House.

General Mulcahy

Or the "Watch-word."

Mr. Lemass

I shall try to explain to the Deputy for the last time what the purpose of the amendment, if carried, will be. Section 5 says:

Whenever an application is made to the Minister under this Act for a new manufacturer's licence the Minister may, in his absolute discretion,

do various things. It is proposed to delete the words "in his absolute discretion" and insert the words "in accordance with provisions to be prescribed." It is quite clear from that, that no licence can be issued except in accordance with provisions to be prescribed. Section 12 says that the Minister may prescribe these provisions. The Minister may not do it, but if he does not do so, the Bill is held up and no licences can be issued. Section 12—Section 11 as it is in the printed draft—says that the provisions prescribed shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

Mr. McGilligan

Although described as sheer nonsense, what I have said will, at any rate, be considered by the Seanad, and it will put them on the alert against any attempt to get away from the publicity they want. It does not matter to the Seanad, or to anybody here, as to whether these regulations be prescribed generally or by the Minister here, but if regulations have got to be made, they shall be made by the Minister.

Mr. Lemass

If what the Minister said had not put the Seanad on the alert, this amendment would not be before us at all.

Amendments 15 and 16 agreed.

Amendments reported and agreed.

Ordered: That a Message be sent to the Seanad accordingly.