Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 25 Nov 1932

Vol. 45 No. 3

Private Members Business. - Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill, 1932—Committee.

The Dáil went into Committee.
Debate resumed on the following amendments in the name of Deputy Wolfe:
177. At the end of sub-section (3) (e), page 27, line 12, to add the words "and the Court has recommended such cancellation."
178. At the end of sub-section (3) (e), page 27, line 12, to add the words "and the Court has certified that the offence is a serious one warranting cancellation."
179. At the end of sub-section (3) (e), page 27, line 12, to add the words "and the said conviction has not been appealed against, or, having been appealed against, has been confirmed on appeal."

These three amendments have been put in. Some of them are by way of being alternatives, but all apply to sub-section (3) (e) on page 27 of the section. That is the section which deals with the appropriate Minister being enabled to alter or cancel a registration on various grounds that are stated. I was pointing out last night that in the comparable section in an earlier part of the Bill relating to flour milling the words: "he is satisfied," which make the Minister's decision the all-important one, are not made a necessary part of the conviction of an offence. Whereas here we have the peculiar position in which the phrase with the overriding consideration with regard to any of these things is the expression of the Minister's satisfaction about certain things which he will determine or will say he is determining as matters of fact. It is bad enough to have it that, ruled by the strict rules of evidence, a man may have his registration either altered or cancelled on being convicted of an offence under the Act—seeing that the offences are so numerous and seeing also that this alteration or cancellation might take place, if there had been a conviction, even though that conviction had been marked by the very slightest penalty which the court had prescribed—but it is worse to have it as it is here when the phrase "is satisfied" governs the whole thing and when, consequently, the Minister's decision is the decision that is to rule.

It is to amend that that Deputy Wolfe has moved that these matters must not merely come before a court but that the court, in addition, has either recommended the cancellation or has certified that the offence is a serious one warranting cancellation, and, thirdly, that the conviction has not been appealed against; in other words, that the offender has let it go by default or that, being appealed against, it has been confirmed on appeal. The purpose of that third provision is, I suppose, that a person on being convicted and, recognising that the conviction might lead to the withdrawal, alteration or cancellation of his licence, would bring an appeal in order to get the importance of the matter declared and might urge against the confirmation on appeal by bringing in this as an additional point. Amendment 179 of the three put down is the one that least appeals to me. I would prefer to get this into the form in which the Control of Manufactures Act has it, that the registration may be cancelled or altered on conviction only if the conviction is for a serious offence under the Act, and cutting out these words "is satisfied" because that again will throw on the Minister the decision as to whether or not the offence for which the conviction had been secured was serious. These words, I think, must go in any event.

Supposing these words were out and this phrase could be got as near as possible to the phrase in the Control of Manufactures Act, namely, that registration could only be cancelled or altered if the conviction was for a serious offence under the Act, it would be in a better form. The use of that particular phrase has not been moved but there has been moved instead that "the court, having this matter brought before it, has recommended," and surely it is an advisable thing to have the plea made to the court whenever a conviction is being sought that one of the possible results of convicting for a small technical offence would inevitably be either alteration or cancellation of the licence? A man should be entitled to ask the court to say whether in its judgment the cancellation should be recommended or not. If the court does not take the positive step of recommending the cancellation under the first of these amendments, then cancellation could not take place. The second one, which is slightly weaker, would be to have it in the form of the court certifying that the offence is serious and warranting cancellation, leaving the decision all the time to the appropriate Minister and having him act within these limitations that he should not act by way of trying to cancel or alter unless the court had recommended, or unless the court had certified that the offence was a serious one which warranted cancellation, and that, even after that, the Minister would be free to use his discretion in whatever way it suited him.

The section, as it stands, is much worse than the one which deals with flour milling and considerably worse than the one in the Control of Manufactures Act. It is completely inequitable that, simply because of a technical offence, of such a nature as that to which I referred yesterday—the failure to send in returns in the manner spoken of in Section 53, sub-section (3) —it should be open to the Minister, if he wished to get after particular millers, to use the fact of conviction for that technical offence to alter or deprive the man of the registration he has got. If there is to be any choice made as between these amendments I hope Deputy Wolfe will not try to insist on amendment 179 unless there is a junction of that with some one of the others. Either amendment 178 or 177 would meet the purpose much better.

In regard to No. 179 the difficulty which I do not think Deputy McGilligan has seen is that, unless it is inserted, it takes away to some extent from an accused person the right of appeal, because a position might arise in which a man fined, and wrongly fined, in the District Court might appeal from the decision and, pending the appeal, the Minister would, if this Bill became law and if it passed both Houses—if it is then law which is, I submit, very doubtful—have the right of exercising his judicial function and, without giving the man an opportunity of pursuing his appeal, take away his licence. That is what I object to. I would like to point out to the Minister that he is up against another very serious difficulty in this case. If this Bill or any other Bill is in contravention of the Constitution it is ultra vires. If this Bill gives him a judicial function, as I suggest it does, he will some day find an enterprising litigant who will say that the Dáil has spent its week manufacturing waste paper. It has been done before now and you will find on the Statute Book flagrant cases of breaches of the Constitution. They are there and it is open to anybody affected by them to move to have quashed a decision made ultra vires.

The right of any subject under the Constitution is to go up and say "This is a bad section made in excess of jurisdiction." And if this section gives to the Minister a judicial function, which I respectfully submit it does, I think he will be up against a very grave difficulty by reason of which he will have, some day, to send his law officers down to the court to explain why it is not against the Constitution. The only thing in my amendment is to postpone execution, pending the hearing of the appeal, and, for that reason, I suggest to the Minister that there can be no objection to it. As regards the other amendments, they are alternatives, and I suggest that No. 177 will carry them out and will give an additional argument to the Minister in cases in which he might be impleaded by someone affected, when he will have to show that this entire section is not in contravention with the Constitution, because it gives him a judicial function which we have no right to give him or anybody else except the recognised courts of this country.

I drew the attention of the Minister yesterday to an aspect of this situation, and that is that a great many citizens of this State do not want to be in the position of going hat in hand to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or to Deputy McGilligan, or whoever may be in the position of Minister, to ask for mercy. Everyone should be in a position to go and demand justice. Amendment 178 gives a defendant the right to make the case in court that whatever technical offence he has been charged with, it is not such a one as would warrant withdrawal of the licence. If he loses on that contention, and if the court decides that he has been guilty of a serious breach of the law, the situation is entirely altered. In justice, I think, from that point of view alone, we are entitled to press the Minister strongly to accept the amendment. Everyone is entitled to that right and it will make the administration of the Act a great deal more difficult for the Minister if that right is not given. So far as amendment 179 goes, if Deputy Wolfe says that the Minister would, in the interval between conviction and appeal, be entitled to withdraw a miller's licence, I would not dream of controverting what he said. But I would be interested to hear what the Attorney-General has to say, if a person is convicted under the Act appeals, whether it would not be at the Minister's own peril if he withdrew a licence, and if he would not leave himself open to an action for damages in the event of the appeal court quashing the conviction. The Minister will readily discover that by reference to his law officers. On the other question I strongly press the Minister to reserve for every citizen the right to secure the protection of the court and to argue his case before a judge, and not at the bar of someone who constitutes prosecuting counsel and judge at the same time. No such tribunal—and that is the tribunal that this Bill envisages —consisting of the Minister for Industry and Commerce acting as judge, although he has instituted the prosecution, would satisfy the ordinary sense of justice, and the Minister should give an opportunity of arguing before a court if it was a technical offence of which the person has been guilty or such a one as would warrant the Minister exercising the power to withdraw a licence.

On the point mentioned by Deputy Wolfe, as to the possibility of some enterprising litigant appealing to the courts, that the section is extraconstitutional, I have only to say that enterprising litigants must have been conspicuous by their absence during the past eight or nine years, because that section is precisely similar to sections contained in every other Agricultural Produce Act introduced during that period.

I agree.

On the general question I have to say that the Minister, advised by his Department, which is responsible for the administration of the Act, is much more competent to judge than any court, whether the circumstances which led to the conviction are sufficient to justify or to necessitate withdrawal of the licence. It is for the court to determine whether an offence under the Act has taken place. I submit that the court has much less competence than the Minister to decide whether that offence is of such a nature, or the circumstances surrounding it are such that withdrawal of the licence should follow. There is nothing done by this section which would necessitate any citizen looking for mercy where he would be entitled to demand justice. The Act was framed very largely for the protection of those who are engaged, or who propose to engage, in any of the industries affected. All the purposes of the Executive Council in relation to this Bill might conceivably be achieved by Finance Resolutions of one kind or another, but we decided to proceed by way of this Bill so as to give certain safeguards to the persons concerned and to de-limit their rights. Their rights are clearly safeguarded unless and until they are convicted of an offence under the Act. If they are convicted it is a matter for consideration whether the licence should be withdrawn. It is clearly inconceivable that a Minister responsible to the Dáil and to the public would withdraw a licence unless he felt certain that the circumstances were such that he would be able to defend his action in public subsequently.

Right through this Bill the powers of the Minister to determine what are offences, as well as the penalties for offences, are almost dictatorial. The Minister has repeatedly quoted other Bills passed in this House within the last eight or ten years. As another Deputy remarked it does not matter what this House passed eight or ten years ago, and if the Minister sees any objection to anything that was passed then he is not paying a great compliment to his own Party when it was in opposition. He stated that the Minister was much more competent than a court to determine what was the offence and what should be the penalty. I deny that. That is one of the things we are anxious to safeguard against; that the Minister's competency is greater than the competency and the justice of the courts. What we aim at, and what I tried to get during previous amendments, is a safeguard for those concerned in the Bill—the millers and the other people. If there are to be penalties with, in some cases, imprisonment for grave offences, I want to secure that these persons will be taken to the courts and if convicted by the courts of an offence, the powers of the Minister in determining whether they are convicted of a technical offence or of a grave offence should be limited in some manner. Under a previous amendment I suggested that there should be a sub-section inserted providing that a person might be convicted of two offences before the Minister could take this grave course. That amendment was defeated. In this particular case I had a similar amendment down which I did not move, because I thought what I was aiming at would be better met by the amendment moved by Deputy Wolfe. The Minister has not made in his defence of the original sub-section any greater claim than he made on the previous amendment that would change my mind as to the necessity for this amendment.

Deputy Wolfe said yesterday that as the section stood a man might have his registration interfered with and suffer major penalties, perhaps, for an offence that carried a sixpenny fine. That might happen and the man would have no redress under the section as it stands. The Minister might do all the things that Section 59 says he may do if the man had been convicted of that offence carrying that small fine. That is a power that no Minister or no Ministerial Department should have. We here are not prepared to accept the dictum that a Minister has greater competence in determining penalties in this or any other Bill than the competence of the judges or justices of our courts. That appears to be the dictum of the Minister, and if it is his dictum it is dangerous for this House to agree to it. I hope that the Minister himself and the House will agree to one or other of the amendments in Deputy Wolfe's name.

I want to draw the Minister's attention to the answer he made to a previous question. He said that once the defendant had been convicted of a breach or a technical breach of the regulations the Minister and the officials of his Department are better judges of the requisite penalty than the judge before whom the defendant appears. Suppose the Minister knocks somebody down with his motor car to-morrow, and knocks, say, a button off the man's boot. Suppose that the Minister is convicted of negligence in driving, will he refer the question of damages to the injured person and let that person assess the damage? The defendants in such cases will inevitably find phantom pains in their backs and neurasthenia and other mysterious diseases and that they cannot possibly go back to work for at least six months and that nothing less than £5,000 will compensate them for the damage they have suffered. Is the claimant or the judge on the Bench the better judge in such a case? Is it not the whole object of the defendant in such a case to see that it would not go to a judge on the Bench alone but that it be referred to a jury of twelve sensible men, who would laugh at the suggestion that the plaintiff should be allowed to assess the damages? That is precisely what the Minister's argument amounts to. His claim is that once a miller is convicted of an offence, technical or otherwise, the offended party is much better able to decide the penalty than the judge on the Bench. How can the Minister defend that? I do not think that he can defend it.

It must be remembered that in this matter we are discussing questions closely related to the administration of the law and it seems to me that in discussing such a matter the Attorney-General at least should be present. Why is the Attorney-General not here this morning to defend the Government policy? Is it because the Attorney-General, being an honoured member of the Bar and having some respect for the profession to which he belongs, feels that he could not stand up in this House and defend such a proposition? I think that that is the reason, and I doubt very much, if it went out from this House to-morrow, that the Attorney-General had stood up for this policy of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that he would be widely briefed to defend persons who are sued for injuries resulting from negligence. If the Attorney-General adopted the principle that once a defendant had been convicted of negligence the plaintiff should be allowed to assess the damages, I very much doubt whether he would get many briefs, and I suggest that the reason the Attorney-General is not here this morning is because he knows that he could not defend the position of the Minister. Furthermore, I suggest that whether Cumann na nGaedheal or anybody else ever advanced such theories in the past, the Minister ought not to advance them now, but rather, if such theories had been advanced in the past, that he should take the opportunity to scotch them now once and for all and mark the disapproval of this House of any attempt by any Minister to push the judges to one side and usurp the functions of the judiciary.

The Minister's answer has raised a new series of points. He now brazenly says that he believes that he himself, and his Departmental officials—presumably he will pay the compliment similarly to the Minister for Agriculture and his Departmental officials—are more competent to decide whether a licence should be altered or withdrawn than any court. That is so definitely his contention that it has got to be countered right away. I think that it ought to be stated, as more nearly the general rule, that no Minister and the officials of his Department are better judges, generally speaking, of things in relation to offences under Acts and of the penalties that ought to flow by reason of convictions for offences under these Acts, than any judge. It seems to me that even a judge of the District Court, who is used to taking evidence and to balancing fact or alleged fact as sworn to against another alleged fact as sworn to, and to making up his mind on the evidence put before him, amongst the welter of allegations—that he is a far better judge, generally having to make up his mind, as to where the truth lies—I make that reservation—than any Minister backed by any number of Departmental officials. I hold that if we are going to get away from that point of view, it should only be after a good cause has been stated properly and has commended itself, after a reasonable discussion, to the two Houses.

I want to take that phrase as used by the Minister in conjunction with another answer of his which he has given, not for the first time. He said: "It is inconceivable that a Minister, who has to defend himself in this House, would do certain things." My answer is what I have previously said that it ought to be impossible for these things to happen. Let us look at some of the defences. Let us look at the one given this morning—that the Department told him to do something. Prior to this morning we would have thought it inconceivable that such a statement would have been made as a defence. Supposing the officials of the Department of Industry and Commerce bullied the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or the officials of the Department of Agriculture bullied the Minister for Agriculture, as they were both driven into this House under the lash this morning, on something which they had not had explained to them, is that to be considered a better judgment—the judgment the Minister is forced to stand over and which he states that he is forced to stand over—is that a better judgment than a court would give? If the Minister did come in here and say in these circumstances that he was coerced by a court judgment, I think there would be much more sympathy felt for him under these circumstances than there was contempt for him under the circumstances outlined this morning.

Let us add on to that the other sort of mental attitude that has been so clear right through the Bill. How often have we heard the Minister say, when saying that it is inconceivable or just about to say that it is inconceivable, that a Minister would not do certain inconceivable things when he had to defend himself—either added to that phrase or as a preamble to it—that the Minister must have control or must have the last word, and that we cannot have people throwing a spanner into the delicately arranged mechanism that a Bill of this kind is? In my opinion, the greatest spanner that was ever thrown in was the spanner thrown in in Section 6 when they declared that they could not get the explanation on which the whole Bill turns.

The Minister outlined here suspicions of quite a number of people, in fact a whole multitude of flour millers, flour importers, wheat importers, maize importers, maize meal importers and distillers, and said that all— even named as such, except the last class referred to here—were enemies of the policy that is going to be carried out under this Bill. From that, of course, you have the Minister's point of view fairly well explained. He starts off with the view that a big section of the lay community is against this Bill and the policy enshrined in it, that most of the people who are to operate it are against it and that he is not going to have a spanner flung into the works, that he must have a straight run. If there is a technical offence committed by one of these unfortunate people, then he can seize hold of that to oust somebody against whom his prejudice has been aroused by the feeling that he is against the whole business or that he has been actually doing something worse, that he has been acting in a way that in the Minister's view is tending to throw a spanner into the works. The Minister has even expressed disapproval of those who have ventured to criticise the scheme. There will be a great many such people.

Supposing an unfortunate maize miller whom the Minister for Agriculture has put on one of the advisory committees is going to speak out and tells him, as we understand from the Press a deputation already unanimously told him, that the business was unworkable. Supposing he gets some maize miller that he has registered, on a deputation or on an advisory committee, telling him again that the scheme is unworkable and reminding him that he said it before. What is the chance of mercy being shown to that miller afterwards if he fails to send in his return on the particular date and he is hauled before a court? The court says: "We have got to find you guilty," and he is found guilty of a technical offence. It is marked up against him and the Minister gets his chance against him. The Minister says, of course, that it is inconceivable that he would act in that way. The answer to that is that he should be fortified with a recommendation of the court that cancellation is a desirable thing or at least a declaration from the court that the offence is serious and one that warrants cancellation.

The Minister falls back on the usual defence of the previous Acts. Deputy Dillon expressed his view of that last night in describing it as wrapping the Cumann na nGaedheal flag around him—the men who were erstwhile so independent. There is another attitude of mind in it, the attitude of mind that can be best expressed by the phrase "If Cumann na nGaedheal did this, what can you expect from poor fish like us?" I think it is more that inferiority complex that is urging to this than anything else. But you do not get a good Bill by running through all the measures that Cumann na nGaedheal passed, particularly in the early stages, taking out the worst features of these Acts and packing them all together. That would be getting something like the lowest common measure of what the Dáil has ever done and is not a desirable standard.

Again, I want to make the counter, stressing it once more, that until we get at least all these measures explained, the effect of them, the withdrawal of the licences referred to, put in comparison with the effects of the cancellation or alteration of licences under this Bill, we do not know whether or not there is any equation between the circumstances or the measures. It is no answer to the point made by Deputy Wolfe, on the possibility of this being unconstitutional to say that there must have been a dearth of enterprise amongst litigants in the past ten years. Deputy Wolfe's interjection to that was that there must have been. A litigant becomes enterprising according to whether or not the deprivation put upon him is serious or slight. You may urge litigants or you may urge people who do not want to be litigious to move, to throw a spanner into the whole works of this measure, if you make such an unjust provision as this, entailing such serious consequences and putting the whole burden of the decision, not upon a Court where it should be, but upon the Minister. The Minister is always careful in these discussions to bring in his advisers. They cannot be pleaded of course, afterwards. There might have been unconstitutional things done in years past. It is open to question whether these things were unconstitutional. The fact that they have not been challenged in Court is no answer to the point whether they were unconstitutional or not. It has not been pushed to that point but just a doubt raised.

There is a greater danger of the point being challenged when it is raised in such a measure as this and when the effect of the withdrawal of a licence is going to be so serious to a man as this is. I might, even if the other measures were brought forward again, prefer to amend them or move to amend them by taking out some of the provisions in them but I would have to relate the amendments which I proposed to the circumstances of the Bill, the penalties and other aspects of the measure. In this section, far the most desirable thing is that paragraph (a) should be a matter of Court decision and paragraph (b), the one we are now discussing, should be completely a matter for the Court and the Court should limit or narrowly define the discretion the Minister has. He should not be able to use the discretion he has whether or not to withdraw a licence, until the Court has recommended it or has guaranteed or certified that there has been a serious offence. Then I think within these narrow limits he might operate his discretion.

I take it the Deputy will take a decision on amendment No. 177 as governing amendments Nos. 178 and 179?

It will not affect No. 179. That is a different point.

The Deputy is pressing No. 177?

Yes. That will rule No. 178.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá: 31; Níl: 58.

  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Davin, William.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Gorey, Denis John.
  • Hayes, Michael.
  • Keating, John.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • McDonogh, Fred.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Bryan.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Curran, Patrick Joseph.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Gormley, Francis.
  • Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheehy, Timothy.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Wolfe; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment 178 not moved.

I move amendment No. 179: At the end of sub-section (3) (e), page 27, line 12, to add the words "and the said conviction has not been appealed against, or, having been appealed against, has been confirmed on appeal."

The Committee divided:—Tá 29; Níl: 49.

  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Gorey, Denis John.
  • Hayes, Michael.
  • Keating, John.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • McDonogh, Fred.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Burke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Bryan.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Curran, Patrick Joseph.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Gormley, Francis.
  • Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheehy, Timothy.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Wolfe; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment 181:—
In sub-section (4), line 22, after the word "fit" to insert the words "and shall if such person or personal representative or liquidator (as the case may be) so demands."— (Jasper Travers Wolfe.)

An amendment dealing with that point will be introduced on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 181:—
In sub-section (6) (a), page 27, line 31, to delete the words "without notice cancel" and substitute therefor the words "in respect of," and to delete all after words the word "Minister," line 34, to the end of the paragraph, line 36, and substitute therefor the words "give notice of his intention to cancel such registration in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4) of this section, and may subject to these provisions cancel such registration."—(Patrick McGilligan.)

Can this amendment be introduced again on Report if it is not moved now?

I now formally move it.

The Minister cannot.

The practice has been that an amendment can only be moved by the Deputy who has offered it or by another Deputy authorised by him.

Yes, though we had a different ruling last night from you on an amendment in the name of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

I gave no such ruling.

It was the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I have learned my lesson now and that is to make no agreements with people who never yet in their lives kept their word.

The Minister should not lose his temper. Napoleons never do.

Mr. Hogan (An Clár):

I beg to say that I did not give any such ruling last night as Deputy McGilligan said.

Very well, I withdraw all I said.

Amendment not moved.
Amendment 182 not moved.

I move amendment 183 and amendment 184:—

In sub-section (6) (b), line 39, to delete the words "without notice" and substitute therefor the words "give notice of his intention to."

In sub-section (6) (b), to delete all after the word "them" line 41, to the end of the paragraph and substitute the words "and may thereafter, subject to the provisions of this section, cancel such registration."

Amendment 184 is consequential on 183. Sub-section (6) (b) reads: "If such person is registered in any register or registers kept by the Minister for Agriculture under this Part of this Act, that Minister may without notice cancel the registration of such person in such register or registers or any of them..." For the purpose of this Act registers are to be kept by wheat importers, wheat dealers, maize millers, maize importers or the manufacturers of compound feeding stuffs. For a technical offence under this Act the Minister may not only remove an offender from the register of one particular trade, but he can remove him from the register of any other trade. In amendment 183 I propose to delete the word "without notice" and to substitute "give notice of his intention to." Amendment 184 provides to delete all after the word "them" in line 41 and to substitute "and may thereafter, subject to the provisions of this section, cancel such registration." The amendment is a suggestion to limit the power of the Minister to extend, apparently to a much wider scope than that in which the offence was committed. Before the Minister should have power to remove a man from the register of maize millers the man should be convicted of an offence as a maize miller and not of an offence, say, as a wheat importer. If it is decided that his name is to be removed from the register of wheat dealers it should not be in the power of the Minister to remove his name from all the other registers; it should not be in the Minister's power to remove him from the register of wheat importers, maize millers, maize importers or manufacturers of feeding stuffs unless he has committed an offence as wheat importer, maize miller, maize importer or manufacturer of feeding stuffs.

I am prepared to consider these two amendments on the Report Stage.

Amendments 183 and 184, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment 185:—

To delete sub-section (7).

I think it is obligatory that if a man should lose his licence in connection with certain premises, perhaps, by reason of the mismanagement of an employee, all his other premises would become affected no matter how good they may have been managed. My suggestion is that that is so manifestly inequitable to the trader that I am moving to have the sub-section deleted.

Sub-section (7) of Section 59 is practically the same as (6). Now sub-section (6) began at one place and ends at the other. This is the opposite, and I do not know why Deputy Wolfe should move the deletion of (7) when he did not move the deletion of (6).

Sub-section (7) says where the registration of any person has been cancelled, the Minister may, without notice, cancel the registration of any such person in any register in which he is registered under this Part of the Act.

Paragraph (b) of sub-section (7) says:—

If such person is registered in any register or registers kept by the Minister for Industry and Commerce under this Part of this Act, that Minister may without notice cancel the registration of such person in such register or registers or any of them and may thereafter refuse to register such person in any register kept by him under this Part of this Act.

It does not matter where the other premises are or whether or not they are well conducted, the registration may be cancelled automatically in all if an offence has been committed by an employee in one. All the registration for the others may be cancelled without notice.

I assume that that will come under consideration at some time.

Oh, on; the whole section could not come under consideration.

Whatever change will be made in one will be made in the other.

There are alternative ways of dealing with this obnoxious sub-section. To me it does not seem a good answer to point out that the Deputy should have moved the deletion of (6). There are alternatives. Deputy Dillon's idea was to weaken sub-section (6); Deputy Wolfe objects to the whole idea and he moves to take out sub-section (7). There is a great deal to be said for taking out sub-section (7). Some of these people are going to be registered in different registers. Under Section 43 some of these registers are under the control of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, but the registration with regard to flour and meal is under another section. The Minister for Agriculture is going to have control over the registers dealing with wheat importers, wheat dealers, wheat growers, maize millers, maize importers and manufacturers of compound feeding stuffs. There is a general provision under Section 59 (3) that the registration may be altered or cancelled for various reasons. The Government, however, have not been pleased enough with their powers under that and they go and take powers to cancel registration on the vague grounds stated in sub-section (3) of Section 59. Under Section 59 (3) the Minister may cancel the registration if the registration was procured through fraud or misrepresentation whether fraudulent or innocent or because the person registered has ceased to carry on the business.

Let us take a concrete case. Under an earlier section the same individual may get registered as a maize importer and he may get registered as a maize miller and also as a manufacturer of compound feeding-stuffs. The Minister decides in his wisdom that the entry on the register of maize importers has been procured by misrepresentation. He therefore can wipe out that registration and, although he cannot say that the registration in the capacity of a maize miller or as a manufacturer of compound feeding-stuffs was also procured by misrepresentation or fraud, he can nevertheless proceed to wipe him off these two registers. Apply that concrete case to (b). A man gets registered in the three registers. He ceases to be a maize importer and because he ceases to be a maize importer, under this section he can be wiped automatically, at the Minister's discretion, off the register of maize millers or off the register of manufacturers of compound feeding-stuffs.

Supposing this person represents a company and that the company is running separate businesses, one as a maize miller and the second as a maize importer. Suppose he is not able to meet his financial obligations as a maize miller and is adjudicated a bankrupt. Although the company is solvent so far as its other business is concerned, the Minister may nevertheless wipe it off the other register. What is the sense in doing that?

Take the case of the individual who obtains the three registrations and who fails to send in the proper returns in relation to his manufacture of compound feeding stuffs. Because of his failure the Minister can wipe him off the register of maize millers and maize importers automatically, and "thereafter may refuse to register such person in any register kept by him." Because a person fails in a very technical way or has been convicted of the offence of not sending in returns in the proper time as a manufacturer of compound feeding-stuffs, why should the penalty flow over to the person who has kept faith with the Ministry and who has been in time with his records, being registered in the other two capacities? There is no reason for the section. This is purely bureaucracy run mad. It is again the idea that the Minister must have the last word. He is afraid, apparently, that there will be spanners thrown into the works and, therefore, he must take all these powers, no matter how inequitably they may be used.

The amendment moved by Deputy Dillon would be some improvement— and this is a Bill that could be improved in many ways—but to my mind the more radical amendment, which seeks to wipe out the sub-section, is the better one. The Minister is not deprived of the powers he ordinarily should get. If the person registered in the three registers is to be attacked in regard to each of the separate registrations it ought to be when he is proved guilty of fraud or misrepresentation in regard to each, or has been adjudicated a bankrupt in regard to each, or has been convicted of an offence in regard to whatever one is to be attacked. There is no reason why a penalty should flow over, particularly when the same individual is concerned. And all this can be done for the most trivial offence.

I think this amendment is preferable to Deputy Dillon's amendment. There has been a good deal of discussion already about cancelling the registration. This section proposes to penalise a person for an offence in respect of a particular register. A company carrying on several businesses might be penalised in respect of them all because of a very trivial offence on one registration. Except that it gives the Minister certain powers, there appears to me to be no object at all for sub-section (7). It does not lend itself to the amendment very much. I think its deletion is more essential than anything else. This section gives extravagant powers to both Ministers, and I do not think the House should stand for giving such dictatorial powers to any Minister.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part."
The Committee divided: Tá, 56; Níl, 33.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Bryan.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Curran, Patrick Joseph.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Gormley, Francis.
  • Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas J.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheehy, Timothy.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Gorey, Denis John.
  • Hayes, Michael.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Keating, John.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • McDonogh, Fred.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies Wolfe and P.S. Doyle.
Question declared carried.

That disposes of amendments 186, 187, 188 and 189.

I move amendment 186.

The Deputy cannot move amendment 186 now. The sub-section stands.

Then I shall hold it over.

There was no indication given that these amendments would fall before the question was put on the last amendment in the form it was put.

The general practice is to put the question "That the words proposed to be deleted stand." Obviously, if the House decides that the words stand, they cannot afterwards be deleted or altered.

There is a practice, when the vote is to be taken in this way, that it is announced beforehand and all the amendments likely to be disposed of discussed at the same time. These were not discussed.

Question proposed: "That Section 59 stand part of the Bill."

On the section, certain amendments were put down but were not moved. One was an amendment by Deputy Wolfe which suggested a change in sub-section (7) rather than the deletion of it. That was to limit the discretion of the Minister with regard to the alteration or cancellation of registration in a register other than the main one—other than the one in relation to which an offence had been committed or about which a charge had been made and considered proven, that it had been procured by fraud or misrepresentation.

The idea which, apparently, underlay the amendment was that the Minister might have this power to operate upon a person who was registered, say, in three registers, but only if the person had been convicted of anything arising under paragraph (e) of sub-section (3). In other words, if you had the individual I spoke of previously carrying on three different types of business and, therefore, under this Act, obliged to register in three different registers, the Minister would not be allowed, on finding him guilty of something which enabled him to take one of these registers from him, to remove him from the other two excepting only it is a reason which causes removal from the main register—the register attacked—or that he had been convicted of an offence. So that if this person who is on three registers was regarded by the Minister as, and therefore convicted of, having procured his entry on one register by mispresentation, the Minister could not proceed to operate against that individual's registration of any other business except in relation to an offence brought before a court and a conviction. That, of course, read in conjunction with the earlier amendments 176, 177, 178, 179, where removal from one register would only have been possible on a conviction obtained twice, or a conviction obtained, and the court having recommended a cancellation; or, on the other point set out in the two other amendments, would have been much more rigid and much more reasonable. The other amendments down to sub-section (7) had intended to modify this in a variety of ways, some of which have been suggested for sub-section (6). I suggest that the whole section is definitely spoiled and made permanently a bad one by reason of the fact that these amendments were not given consideration or were not accepted by the Dáil.

Section 59, as it now stands, has got to be looked upon as a whole. The Minister takes power to himself to alter or cancel a registration if the person applies. He refuses to change that. He refuses to have it so put that he must cancel the registration of a person who applies to have it cancelled. He, therefore, takes power to keep a person on the register who does not want to be on it, and being kept on the register means that a person is subject to penalties for not milling the proper quota, for not making returns in the proper form, or for not making them in the proper time, although he wants, and has expressed the desire, to get clean out of the business. That is the first thing that comes out of the section.

The second thing is that the Minister takes power to himself alone, and has refused amendments which in any way limit the power, to correct the register where it is misleading or erroneous. Suggestions have been made that the correction of an error should only be done after notice to the person who is alleged to have made an erroneous entry, and after his agreement had been obtained to the change. Again that was refused. Under the first sub-section the Minister takes power to keep on the register a man who does not want to be in the business and can keep him on during the currency of the licence. We are told previously that there is no time limit to be put on this licence, so that if a man goes into any of these businesses, like dealing with home-grown wheat, milling wheat, milling maize, or any of the other things, he can be kept at it at the Minister's desire, whether he wishes to continue or not. The entry that he has made previously when going on—it might be a very important matter for him—may be changed by the Minister and there is no appeal from him. If the entry is erroneous or misleading, the man is tied, on the impact on sub-section (1) of sub-section (2) as long as the Minister keeps him tied, to the register, and to entries which he may think a complete mis-description of himself and his premises. The third thing gets to the point about the man who wants to stay on and whom the Minister wants to put off.

Under a combination of sub-sections (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) the Minister can operate in this way. The Minister arrogates to himself the ability to determine whether an entry has been secured by fraud or misrepresentation and, exercising that assumed judicial capacity, he can put a person off the register. He can then do what looks innocuous as it appears in sub-section (3) (b), put any person off the register if he has ceased to carry on the business in respect of which he is registered. He can do what appears innocuous in (c), and he can do what appears innocuous in (d); he can take a person off the register if that person has been adjudicated bankrupt. These harmless items assume another complexion when we see how they are tied up in sub-sections (6) and (7). Finally, he can take a person off the register if he is satisfied that the person registered has been convicted of an offence under the Act, no matter how slight, and no matter how small the penalty; whether, in fact, there has been a conviction or not if, on whatever evidence he requires to be brought before him, he feels he has enough to satisfy himself that there has been a conviction for an offence under the Act. The courts, where you have people of a judicial capacity appointed, for that reason generally lay down regulations for themselves as to how evidence of convictions is to be brought before them. In order to avoid any error, there are rules laid down, which must be complied with, as to how notice of a conviction is to be given under the seal of certain people. There are certain formalities to be attended to. There is none of that here. If the Minister is satisfied that there has been a conviction, apart from the other point, he has to make up his mind whether there ought to have been a conviction, or, if he is not going to pass any judgment on that, whether the offence committed is serious enough to warrant the withdrawal or alteration of the registration.

Sub-section (4) sets out the machinery Before doing any of these things, there has to be notice given to the person about to be affected. If the person likes to make representations, those representations must be considered. Finally, on an amendment which was moved, and which was not in the Bill originally, he may have an inquiry if he thinks fit, and he must, under the amendment moved, have it if the person demands it. Even after the inquiry has been held, these facts are not going to be made known to the House. They are all hidden away with the Minister and his Department and he operates upon information that the House will not have, presumably, information that will be refused to it, if he likes, on an occasion that it happens to become aware of, on the ground that it would not be in the public interest to reveal the evidence elicited at the inquiry.

I spoke of the things that looked to be harmless in sub-section (3) (b) and (d). Then we come to these two amazing paragraphs, (6) and (7). Then we have the matter that I referred to before—the case of a person who is registered in three registers. He has done that because he is obliged to do it under this Bill. He happens to be in three separate businesses. The State, by passing this Bill, now imposes on him the obligation that before he can conduct business in any of these three lines he has got to register. It puts his head into a noose from which he may not be able to withdraw. He sends in a description of his business and particulars he wants to have registered, and the Minister may change these on the grounds that they are erroneous or misleading. After all that, when he has got himself registered on the three registers, if he has ceased to carry on the business in which he is registered in one of them, the appropriate Minister may wipe him out of the other two. Why should it not be that he will be taken off each register as he ceases to carry on the business for which he is registered in that register?

The same considerations apply with regard to (d), although the point there is not so clear and will not so often arise. You may have a company interested in three different types of business, with separate capital and separate commitments in each. If it fails to meet its obligations in one, and remains financially sound in the other two, because it has gone bad in one type of business the Minister takes power to take it off all three registers. If a person, who is registered in three separate registers, is convicted of some slight technical offence in regard to one of them, the Minister takes power to remove him from the other two, although he may be able to get a certificate from the Minister that he has made returns in good time on the other two. The Minister takes power further to refuse to register such person thereafter in any register that he keeps. It is quite possible, if the present economic war develops, that a large number of persons who are registered in some of these registers will go bankrupt. Quite a number of the population are getting that way at the moment. Supposing then, because of a situation that the Government has brought about, people find their business collapsing around them, is the Minister going to be enabled to hold that against them thereafter, and refuse to enter them on any register when the situation has improved, and when the people again think fit to be enterprising and to put money into business?

There is no justification for these absurdly large powers. There is no reason in a Bill of this sort, which may take a man's livelihood from him. There is no reason why such matters as fraud and misrepresentation should not be left to the only people fit to judge them—people with judicial capacity. There is no reason why, because a man ceases to carry on one of the businesses for which he has got registration, he should be put out of the other businesses in which he has secured his registration. There is no reason whatever why it should be left to the Minister to decide whether in fact there has been a conviction for an offence, and—even if that technical point has been got over—whether the offence is substantial enough to justify his taking him off one register, which includes the right to take him off every register and the right to refuse to allow him to enter in any register thereafter.

The section as drafted is one of the wildest in the Bill, and when one comes to consider some other points in it there will be some realisation of the strength of that statement. It is one of the wildest sections in a completely wild Bill, right from the start. There is no great substance in it; there is no great hope in it; there is a lot of imagination in it. Even the attempt to work the Bill has now apparently broken down, because of what the Minister discovered and announced to this House as early as the sixth Section, that he saw no way of getting a definition to determine what is millable wheat and how it may be classified as against non-millable wheat. I object to the whole section.

It seems to me that the fact that it was necessary to introduce a section of this kind, imposing as it does such very drastic penalties, is a sign of the inherent weakness of the whole Bill. The only justification I can see for the introduction of the drastic penalties imposed under this particular section is the fact that the Minister anticipates a certain amount of noncompliance with the terms of the Bill. I can quite understand that there would be a desire certainly on the part of many millers in the country to avoid, if possible, carrying out the provisions of this Bill, because, as business men, they must recognise that in many respects, it is almost impossible, and that certainly it is not calculated to help either the business of milling in this country, or to help the class of people for whom the millers do business.

Now I say that, because a man may lose his licence, even on a trivial technical point, under one register, it is not proper that his licence on the the other registers should be cancelled or withdrawn as well. That seems to be an outrageous procedure, and whilst the Minister states that this section is to a certain extent based on sections in Acts passed by the previous Government, the circumstances under which these Acts were introduced are quite different to the circumstances relating to the introduction of this particular Bill, and the problem which the Eggs Act had to deal with is quite a different problem to the one which this Bill is dealing with. I do not see that, in any event at the present time, the Minister would be at all justified in taking this section out of the Eggs Act—I am taking the Minister's word that such a section does exist in the Eggs Act— and putting it into a Bill of this kind dealing with a specified industry—an industry which the Minister himself admits is run at the present time on very efficient lines and which, if allowed to operate freely, would undoubtedly in time be more efficient still. It appears to me that, in the Minister's own interest, he should relieve himself of the powers which he proposes to assume under this particular section. I can visualise the amount of trouble and the amount of annoyance that will be caused to the Minister himself and to his officials in the carrying out of the provisions of this particular section. I can easily visualise the case of a miller who is threatened with the withdrawal of his licence resorting to all sorts of political influences in order to secure that the Minister may allow him to continue his licence. I can also visualise the case of the official who is acting under the authority of the Minister, and who will be responsible for reporting, I assume, to the Minister the circumstances which would justify him in either withdrawing or cancelling the licence or registration of a particular mill. I can quite understand the position that that official would be placed in. I am not suggesting for a moment that the officials are not a perfectly honourable body of men—I know from my own experience of officials that they are. But an official acting in the capacity imposed on him by this particular Bill, and particularly by this particular section of the Bill, and having perhaps to report to the Minister that in his opinion the registration should either be cancelled or withdrawn, or that the licence should be either cancelled or withdrawn, giving his reasons, the Minister can rest assured that all sorts of pressure and all sorts of influence will be brought to bear on that official to minimise his report as much as possible, and to refrain—if I might put it in that way—from carrying out his duties in the way in which the Minister, under this Bill, requires him to carry them out.

In the first place, the official is placed in a rather peculiar position. I am quite satisfied that any official acting under the Minister will carry out his duties—will endeavour, at any rate, to carry out the duties in the way in which officials are carrying them out at the present time. The Minister himself will undoubtedly be bombarded by all sorts of people to secure the retention of the registration for a particular mill or for a particular miller. First of all, for the purpose of relieving the Minister himself of such pressure, and giving the millers and the people engaged in the milling business of this country to understand that this Bill when it does become law will be administered fairly, squarely and impartially, I think it should be left to a court to determine whether the circumstances which may arise in connection with the management of a particular mill justify him in the withdrawal or cancellation of registration. I am certain also, if the Minister would agree to leave it to the court to decide whether the circumstances justify the withdrawal or cancellation of a licence, that this Bill would be much more acceptable to the millers in the country, and that as a consequence of a gesture of this kind he would receive their co-operation in carrying out the other clauses of this Bill, drastic though they may be in many respects.

Question—"That Section 59 stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided. Tá, 57; Níl, 33.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brady, Bryan.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Curran, Patrick Joseph.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Gormley, Francis.
  • Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas J.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheehy, Timothy.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Gorey, Denis John.
  • Hayes, Michael.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Keating, John.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • McDonogh, Fred.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Conlon.
Question declared carried.
Amendments 190 to 195 inclusive not moved.

No. 195 is the one which displays the Deputy's knowledge of the law.

Would the Minister like to have it discussed on that basis?

Amendment 196 not moved.

I might as well explain that I am not moving these amendments because I understand that a lot of the Deputies want to meet their constituents at the week-end in order to explain the great benefits going to flow from this Bill and I would like to let them off as soon as possible.

The Deputies on this side are quite willing to meet their constituents or the constituents in any of the by-election areas. Apparently the Party opposite is afraid to do that.

Waterford last week and the Minister for Industry and Commerce! I am not moving amendment 197 for the reasons I have stated.

I am going down to Waterford this week-end.

Take some millable wheat with you.

There are some questions I raised on the Second Reading and, as the Minister did not reply then, I might possibly be able to raise them now.

They will be late for their trains.

Especially for Galway.

I will not take long. I would like the Minister to give some explanation——

Deputy Gorey ought to try the Curragh again.

Will the Minister give some explanation as to how he arrived——

The Minister did not give any explanation on Second Reading of what is the vital portion of the Bill, namely the standard price he fixes in the schedule. I think he said that whereas a couple of years ago 30/- was put forward as a reasonable price at which wheat could be sold and grown economically per barrel of 20 stones, he thought that, owing to changes that had taken place in the meanwhile, into which he did not go, that 25/-, or as the case may be, in certain seasons of the year, 23/-, would be sufficient. He did not make any attempt, beyond a mere statement on his part, to explain why the cost of growing wheat had fallen so to speak from what was looked on then—I think it was in 1927—as a reasonable price of 30/- to 25/- or whether the overhead expenses of the farmer, cost of labour, and various other circumstances had fallen. The opportunity did not arise on the conclusion of the Second Stage because he did not reply. There were a number of questions raised on the Second Stage to which for obvious reasons he did not reply—because he moved the closure. But a great deal of the practical working of this Bill will, of course, depend on the fair, reasonable accuracy of the amounts put down in the Second Schedule. As to how the Government arrives at these particular figures, we have absolutely no information before us.

Section 65 agreed to.
SECTION 66.
(1) Every certificate (in this Part of this Act referred to as a sale (home-grown wheat) certificate) required by this section to be used shall be in the following form:—
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (CEREALS) ACT, 1932. SALE (HOME-GROWN WHEAT) CERTIFICATE.
Part I.
I hereby certify as follows:—
(a) that on the .......... day of ..................... I sold to ..................... of ..................... wheat to the amount of ....... barrels, and
(b) that the said wheat was harvested during the current cereal year and was the produce of a crop grown by ............ at the lands of ............... in the county of .............., and
(c) that the said lands were entered in the register of wheat growers during the period of three months next preceding the commencement of such cereal year.
Signature of Vendor.................
Address of Vendor...................
Dated the........day of.......19.....
Part II.
I hereby certify as follows:—
(a) that on the................. I purchased from................ of....................millable home-grown wheat to the amount of................barrels, and
(b) that the said wheat has been duly delivered to me, and
(c) that the price paid by me for the said wheat was........per barrel.
Signature of Purchaser.............
Address of Purchaser...............
Dated this.......day of........19.....
(2) Whenever during any sale (wheat) season in a cereal year any home-grown millable wheat harvested during such cereal year and grown on premises entered in the register of wheat growers during the period of three months next preceding the commencement of such cereal year is sold to a person (in this section referred to as the purchaser) who is either a licensed miller, a registered wheat dealer, or a registered distiller by a person (in this section referred to as the vendor) who is either the person (in this section referred to as the registered person) who was so registered in respect of such premises during such period or the personal representative or liquidator of the registered person or the assignee from the registered person or the personal representative of the registered person of such premises, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) the vendor shall upon delivery to the purchaser of such wheat, furnish to the purchaser a form of sale (home-grown wheat) certificate having previously inserted in Part I of the said form the particulars indicated therein and appropriate to the transaction and signed the said Part I at foot thereof,
(b) the purchaser upon being furnished with the said form with Part I thereof duly completed in accordance with the immediately preceding paragraph and signed by the vendor shall do the following things, that is to say—
(i) insert in Part II of the said form the particulars indicated in the said Part II and appropriate to the said transaction and sign the said Part II, at the foot thereof, and
(ii) send the said form to the Minister forthwith and
(iii) deliver a copy thereof as completed by the vendor and the purchaser to the vendor.
(3) If any person fails or neglects to comply with the provisions of this section or makes in any sale (home-grown wheat) certificate 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 the penalties mentioned in the Part I of the First Schedule to this Act.

I move amendments 198, 200 and 201:—

198. In sub-section (1), page 29, line 54, to insert after the word "barrels" the words and figures "of 20 stones each."

200. In sub-section (1), page 30, line 12, to insert after the word "barrels" the words and figures "of 20 stones each."

201. In sub-section (1), page 30, line 15, to insert after the word "barrel" the words and figures "of 20 stones."

They are designed to make clear what a barrel is.

Why is it necessary?

So that the Deputy will understand.

Although a barrel was defined in the original definition as meaning a barrel of 20 stones?

It is for the purpose of saving a person from going back to look for the definition.

The necessity might be regarded as being a little more intelligent. Would the Minister take a suggestion from me that he should take out the figure 20 and we would then have wheat described as stones?

Like the Deputy's head.

We are not going to have millable wheat described as standard but we are going to have any rubbish thrown in. Why not have it just stones and have the thing a complete farce?

I move amendment 199:—

In sub-section (1), page 30, to insert at the end of line 3 the following:—

and

(d) that I was registered in the said register in respect of the said lands during the said period or that I am the personal representative (or liquidator) of the person who was registered in the said register in respect of the said lands during the period or that I am the assignee of the said lands.

This would establish the exact relationship between the vendor and the grower. It might not be clear unless the amendment was put in.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 201, as follows, was agreed to:—
In sub-section (1), page 30, line 15, to insert after the word "barrel" the words and figures "of 20 stones."—(Aire Talmhaiochta.)
Amendment 202 not moved.
Question—"That Section 66, as amended stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Section 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Are any penalties provided for non-observance of the section?

Can the Deputy read?

SECTION 68.

Amendments 203, 204, 205, 206 and 207 not moved.
Section 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 69.
Amendments 208, 209 and 210 not moved.
(3) the Minister may, if he so thinks fit, by order make regulations prescribing the minimum or the maximum or both the minimum and the maximum amount of wheat on which a bounty may be paid under this section to any person in respect of wheat sold or milled into flour in any sale (wheat) season, and whenever any such regulations are in force the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) if such regulations fix in respect of any sale (wheat) season a minimum amount of wheat in respect of which a bounty may be so paid, no bounty shall be paid to any person in respect of any home-grown millable wheat sold or milled into flour in such a sale (wheat) season unless such person proves to the satisfaction of the Minister that the amount of wheat so sold or so milled into flour was in excess of the minimum so fixed, and
(b) if such regulations fix in respect of any sale (wheat) season a maximum amount of wheat in respect of which a bounty may be so paid, no bounty shall be paid to any person in respect of any home-grown millable wheat sold or milled into flour in such sale (wheat) season on any quantity of wheat so sold or milled in excess of the maximum so fixed.

I move amendment 211:

To delete subsection (3).

Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendments 212, 213, 214 not moved.
Section 69, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 70.

I move amendment 216:

Before Section 70 to insert a new section as follows:—

(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Minister may from time to time by order declare that, where in any specified cereal year a person disposes of home-grown millable wheat which is less in amount than the minimum amount fixed in relation to such year by such order, no wheat bounty shall be payable in respect of any such wheat, and whenever any order is made under this sub-section in relation to a cereal year and is in force, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say, where a person in such cereal year disposes of home-grown millable wheat which is less in amount than the minimum amount fixed by such order, no wheat bounty shall be paid in respect of any of such wheat.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Minister may from time to time by order declare that, where in any specified cereal year a person disposes of home-grown millable wheat which exceeds in amount the maximum amount fixed by such order in relation to such year, wheat bounty shall be payable only in respect of so much of such wheat as does not exceed the said maximum amount, and whenever any order is made under this sub-section in relation to a cereal year and is in force, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—

(a) where a person in such cereal year disposes of home-grown millable wheat (in this sub-section referred to as the year's crop) which exceeds in quantity the maximum amount (in this sub-section referred to as the maximum) fixed by such order, wheat bounty, if payable to such person, shall be paid only on so much of the year's crop as does not exceed the maximum;

(b) where the year's crop is disposed of in two sale (wheat) seasons of such cereal year, the following provisions shall have effect in relation to the amount of the year's crop upon which wheat bounty, if payable to such person, is to be paid and the rate or rates thereof, that is to say:—

(i) if the amount of the year's crop disposed of in the earlier sale (wheat) season of such cereal year exceeds the maximum, wheat bounty, at the rate appropriate to such sale (wheat) season, shall be paid only on so much thereof as does not exceed the maximum, and no wheat bounty shall be paid on the remainder of the year's crop,

(ii) if the amount of the year's crop disposed of in such earlier sale (wheat) season equals the maximum, wheat bounty, at the rate appropriate to such season, shall be paid only on that amount, and no wheat bounty shall be paid on the remainder of the year's crop,

(iii) if the amount of the year's crop disposed of in such earlier sale (wheat) season is less than the maximum, wheat bounty, at the rate appropriate to such sale (wheat) season, shall be paid on that amount, and wheat bounty, at the rate appropriate to the other sale (wheat) season of such cereal year, shall be paid only on so much of the year's crop disposed of in such earlier sale (wheat) season as, with the amount of the year's crop disposed of in such earlier sale (wheat) season, does not exceed the maximum;

(c) where the year's crop is disposed of in the three sale (wheat) seasons of such cereal year, the following provisions shall have effect in relation to the amount of the year's crop upon which wheat bounty, if payable to such person, is to be paid, and the rate or rates thereof, that is to say:—

(i) if the amount of the year's crop disposed of in the first sale (wheat) season of such cereal year exceeds the maximum, wheat bounty, at the rate appropriate to such first sale (wheat) season, shall be paid only on so much thereof as does not exceed the maximum, and no wheat bounty shall be paid on the remainder of the year's crop,

(ii) if the amount of the year's crop disposed of in such first sale (wheat) season equals the maximum, wheat bounty, at the rate appropriate to such first sale (wheat) season, shall be paid on that amount, and no wheat bounty shall be paid on the remainder of the year's crop,

(iii) if the amount of the year's crop disposed of in such first sale (wheat) season does not exceed the maximum, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—

I. wheat bounty, at the rate appropriate to such first sale (wheat) season, shall be paid on that amount, and

II. wheat bounty, at the rate appropriate to the second sale (wheat) season of such cereal year, shall be paid on so much of the year's crop disposed of in such second sale (wheat) season as, with the part of the year's crop disposed of in such first sale (wheat) season, does not exceed the maximum,

III. in case the amount of the year's crop disposed of in such first and second sale (wheat) seasons upon which bounty is payable under the preceding provisions of this sub-paragraph equals or exceeds the maximum, no wheat bounty shall be paid on the remainder of the year's crop,

IV. in case the amount of the year's crop disposed of in such first and second sale (wheat) seasons is less than the maximum, wheat bounty, at the rate appropriate to the third sale (wheat) season of such cereal year, shall be paid on so much of the year's crop disposed of in such third sale (wheat) season as, with the amounts disposed of in such first and second sale (wheat) seasons does not exceed the maximum.

(3) Nothing in the section shall be construed as preventing orders in relation to the same cereal year being made under both sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section.

(4) Every order made under this section in relation to a cereal year shall be made not later than one year before the commencement of such cereal year.

(5) In this section the expression "disposes of" shall be construed as equivalent to the expression "sells or mills into flour" and the expression "disposed of" shall be construed accordingly.

(6) Every order made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution is passed by either House of the Oireachtas within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat annulling such order, such order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such order.

Are we entitled to know anything about it? Would the Minister even recite it?

Is there a Cumann na nGaedheal precedent for sub-section (2) of Section 7?

Oh, no. This is a considerable improvement.

It seems to me to be a considerable improvement on any provision made outside the realms of the Shah of Persia. (Sub-section (2) read). This is a sub-section following a pious sub-section (1) giving the right to go to court and the money will not be taken until the case is proved in court. Sub-section (2) points out how he is to take his case to court, and the judge is promptly coerced to decide the case in his favour. I think it is bad to supersede the courts of this country by turning the procedure into a joke, as I think happens. To tell a man that if he wants to recover something he can go to court is a joke here. What is the use of giving the right to take civil proceedings if the Minister may by statute pre-judge the issue?

The Cumann na nGaedheal precedent would necessitate the addition of such words as "and it shall not be necessary to prove the signature to such licence or that such licence was in fact authorised."

This is an important section for the bulk of the wheat growers. If a man can get a bounty for an indefinable something, which the Minister describes as millable wheat——

And which the Deputy said he would define.

——and if it was discovered that he was not entitled to the bounty, it would be difficult for the Minister to prove that he was entitled to the bounty for something which purported to be given for millable wheat. The section leaves the farming community, so to speak, suspended in the air. They do not know where they are.

I do not wish this matter to pass. Am I exaggerating when I say that sub-section (1) is reduced to a farce by sub-section (2)? It merely means not only will the Minister recover from the miller the amount overpaid, but he will also saddle him with costs. There is no use in putting the miller to costs. It would be better for the Minister to go and to grab the subsidy. This section means that he is going to be brought to court and put to costs by simply producing his sign manual. Neither judge nor jury can enquire. Is that so?

As the Minister for Industry and Commerce states, this is the usual form. All the Minister does is to certify from the records. A copy of the certificate is sent from the flour mill and from the persons claiming the bounty, and if they do not correspond the Minister's certificate is conclusive evidence. It would be very difficult to have it otherwise. It would mean that several people would have to come along as witnesses and that books and documents would have to be brought. I think this is a very simple matter. It may not be very simple to the people opposite—they may find a difficulty to understand it—but if the certificates are sent up I think Deputy Dillon will understand the position. If certificates are sent up from the miller, we expect to get a copy of these from the persons claiming the bounty. If they do not correspond, the Minister certifies that they do not.

I sympathise with the Minister, because I believe he is trying to defend a legacy which he got from Cumann na nGaedheal.

There is some truth in that.

The sub-section says merely that "in any proceedings a certificate in writing signed by the Minister, stating that a person has obtained a payment... and that such person was not entitled to such payment or to a specified part thereof, shall be conclusive evidence." From that it is plain that no other evidence, documentary or otherwise, is introduced at all. There is no crossexamination of the records, no review of the alleged facts. The Minister can simply walk into the witness-box—in fact, he does not have to appear at all —and say that a certain document signed by himself, Exhibit A, shall be conclusive evidence of those matters as stated in his certificate, and that finishes the whole thing. The judge is bound to find that what is contained in the Minister's allegation is, in fact, the fact. Suppose, on the other hand, that sub-section (1) stands alone. Under that sub-section, if it is found that a person has obtained payment to which, or to part of which, he was not lawfully entitled, the Minister institutes civil proceedings to recover from the particular miller the amount in excess of what he is properly entitled to. The Minister goes into court and sues that man, and it is for the miller to prove that he did not receive that payment or that excess payment and that the Minister is under a misapprehension. But here, in sub-section (2), he has no such recourse at all. The moment Exhibit A goes in, there is nothing further to be said. I do not want the Minister to do anything until he has had an opportunity of consulting with the Attorney-General or his other legal advisers, but I would ask him to hold this over for the Report Stage until he has consulted with his legal advisers on the matter.

In any civil suit you would have to bring witnesses actually into court, and if there was good reason for the claim it could be judged on its merits.

The Deputy's knowledge of law is improving.

There is good reason for it here, and it is a good reason anywhere.

We may yet reach the level attained by the Deputy in the Public Safety and other similar Acts.

That argument amounts to saying, "well, if Cumann na nGaedheal did this what can you expect from poor fish like us?"

Amendment 216 agreed to.
Section 70, as amended, agreed to.
Section 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 217, 218, 219 not moved.
Section 72 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 220, 221, 222 not moved.
Section 73 agreed to.
Sections 74 and 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 76.
(1) It shall not be lawful for a registered maize importer to sell maize to any person other than another registered maize importer, or a registered maize miller or the Minister unless under and in accordance with a licence granted by the Minister.
(2) It shall not be lawful for a registered maize miller to sell any maize unless under and in accordance with a licence granted by the Minister.
(3) The Minister may attach to any licence granted under this section such conditions as he thinks fit and may revoke such licence at any time.
(4) If any person acts in contravention of this section such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to the penalties mentioned in Part III of the First Schedule to this Act.

I move amendment 223:—

To delete sub-section (1) and substitute the following sub-section:—

"(1) It shall not be lawful for a registered maize importer:—

(a) if he is also a registered maize miller, to sell maize to any person; or

(b) in any other case, to sell maize to any person, other than another registered maize importer, or a registered maize miller or the Minister,

unless under and in accordance with a licence granted by the Minister."

Amendment 223 agreed to.
Amendments 224, 225, 226, 227 not moved.
Section 76, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 77.
(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to sell any maize meal unless either—
(a) all the following conditions are complied with, that is to say:—
(i) such maize meal is sold for human consumption, and
(ii) such maize meal is sold in a sealed package, and
(iii) the weight of maize meal in such package does not exceed one stone, or
(b) such maize meal forms part of a maize meal mixture.
(2) If any person acts in contravention of this section such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to the penalties mentioned in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act.

I move amendment 228:—

In sub-section (1) (a) (i), line 48, to delete the word "sold" and substitute the word "intended."

Amendment 228 agreed to.
Amendments 229, 230, 231, 232 not moved.

Before leaving that section, I should like to know has the Minister examined the question of what is commonly known as Golden Meal, which is maize meal used for human consumption? Does the Minister think it reasonable to say that no distributor of maize meal in this form can purchase it in large quantities? He must pay the licensed price? The ordinary practice is that this meal is bought in cwt. bags, that is, this meal called Golden Meal which is used for human consumption, and it is then packed in quarter stones and half stones for retail distribution. Under this section I take it that the licensed miller must pack this meal in packages not exceeding one stone in weight, which will increase the cost enormously. Will the Minister consider sub-head 3 of sub-section (a) of Section 77 and see if it would interfere with the administration of the Act to allow this Golden Meal to be sold in sealed packages of more than a stone weight?

That has been fully considered and I think it would interfere with the working of the Act if more than one stone was allowed.

Would it?

I am afraid so.

Perhaps the Minister will take the matter into consideration in any case. This is a matter which has to do with the very poor, and this meal is very largely used in the making of porridge.

Section 77, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 78.
(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to sell or offer for sale any maize meal mixture unless all the following conditions are complied with, that is to say:—
(a) such maize meal mixture is contained in a package, and
(b) the weight of maize meal in such package is not less than one hundredweight, and
(c) such package has legibly stamped on the outside thereof in letters and figures not less than two inches in height an indication of the percentage by weight of each of the component parts of such mixture.
(2) If the person acts in contravention of this section such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to the penalties mentioned in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act.

I move amendment 233:—

In sub-section (1), page 34, to delete in line 2 the word "all" and to delete paragraphs (b) and (c) and substitute the following paragraph:—

(b) if the weight of maize meal mixture is not less than one hundredweight, such package has legibly stamped on the outside thereof in letters and figures not less than two inches in height an indication of the percentage by weight of each of the component parts of such mixture.

I would like to say, however, that I might be inclined to replace it by another amendment on the Report Stage with regard to branding and labelling; accordingly I think it might be better to withdraw it for the present.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 234, 235 and 236 not moved.
Ordered: That Section 78 stand part of the Bill.

On that section it is permissible for the Minister to prescribe by statute that the maize miller cannot sell any maize meal mixture containing more than the prescribed percentage of moisture or more than the prescribed percentage of fibre. If the Minister can do that kind of thing without interfering with the trade or without making the carrying on of the trade impossible, why cannot he take a step forward and say that no maize meal mixture can be sold from which the natural oil has been extracted? One of the most valuable kinds of maize meal is that from which the natural oil has not been extracted. The distributors of one particular brand of meal use that as an advertisement. I can quite see that a restriction of that kind might make it very difficult for the trader, but if it is feasible in the one case of the percentage of moisture or fibre, I think that it is far more important that there should be restriction in this matter of the extraction of the natural oils. I suggest that if, after inquiring into it, the Minister is satisfied that the trade is able to carry on under the restrictions in the one case, it should be possible for them to carry on with this further and very important restriction.

As the Deputy probably knows, there has been practically no oil extraction done in this country at all in recent years.

Is the Minister sure of that?

There is also the ordinary analysis which can be resorted to to find that out. It is a point that I might consider having inserted, but I think it hardly arises.

Ordered that Section 79 stand part of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 237 and 238 not moved.
Section 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 81.
Question proposed: "That Section 81 stand part of the Bill."

I should like to know how the restrictions on the importation of bread imposed by this section will affect Donegal?

There will be no change from the present position. At the present time bread is being allowed into certain parts of Donegal. We hope however that in a short time imported bread will be excluded from the whole area.

Except in the neighbourhood of a certain area where resides a certain gentleman whose political views are known to be non-existent.

I can assure the Deputy that the only circumstances taken into account in deciding on restrictions on the importation of bread is the capacity of individual bakers in regard to producing bread of a certain quantity and quality at a suitable price.

And the prosperity of the general co-operative movement in the country.

Every enterprising businessman in this country is naturally a supporter of the Government. That may have given rise to the Deputy's misunderstanding.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendments 239 and 240 not moved.
Section 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 241 and 242 not moved.
Section 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 84 (2).
(2) The restrictions on importation imposed by this section shall not apply in the case of any oats, hay or straw, which complies with all the following provisions, that is to say:—
(a) such oats, hay or straw is imported from Northern Ireland by a farmer resident in Northern Ireland; and
(b) such oats, hay or straw was grown in Northern Ireland by the importer; and
(c) the quantity of such oats, hay or straw imported by any one importer on one day does not exceed 15 hundredweights; and
(d) such oats, hay or straw is imported for sale by the importer in a market town and is imported on a day which is a market day in that town.

I move amendment No. 243:—

To delete sub-section (2).

Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 244 not moved.
Section 84, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 85.
Amendment No. 245 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 85 stand part of the Bill."

I should like to ask what is the point of having a Schedule in this Bill at all? The Minister has got power under this section to schedule anything he likes. Where is the use of putting in a Schedule when by order the Minister for Agriculture can schedule anything or can add any feeding stuff to the Schedule? Would it not be much simpler to say that? Putting in these schedules merely creates a false sense of security.

The Schedule shows our starting point.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 246 and 247 not moved.
Section 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 248, 249 and 250 not moved.
Section 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Sections 88 and 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendments 251 and 252 not moved.
Section 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendments 253, 254, 255 and 256 not moved.
Section 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 92.
Amendments 257 to 260, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 92 stand part of the Bill."

Why does the Minister for Industry and Commerce take the precaution of serving notice under this section by registered letter when in an earlier section he took power to serve it in any way he liked—by letter post, registered letter or in any other way? Why has he got so cautious towards the end of the Bill?

In this case notice by registered letter is sufficient. We may not be able to find the man and we will send the registered letter to his last known place of address. It might not be safe to approach him personally.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 261 to 265, inclusive, not moved.
Section 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 94.
Amendments Nos. 266, 267 and 268 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 94 stand part of the Bill."

I desire to make what may be a despairing protest against the principle contained in this section, a principle introduced by Deputy McGilligan when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce and which permitted the Government to launch into every conceivable kind of business enterprise. In that way he erected the extraordinary structure of the Electricity Supply Board which is neither a Government Department nor anything else, but which has a kind of suspended existence, a structure which involves the State in unlimited and strange liabilities and yet denies the State the necessary control which it should have over it. Another similar structure was the Dairy Disposals Board, the finances of which, as far as I have been able to find out, cannot be inquired into by this Dáil at all on the grounds of public policy. I do not quite know what form the Minister for Industry and Commerce will follow when he proceeds to purchase plant, machinery and equipment or whether there will be another strange creature created——

There cannot be under this section.

No, but I have to ask beforehand what you are doing now and whither are you leading us?

Upwards and onwards.

I can well understand the Minister loudly lamenting that under this section he has no machinery to carry out the purpose or the underlying spirit of the Act, but does he propose to create another monster which will out Joseph Rank? If I had to choose between a monopoly by Joseph Rank and a monopoly by an Irish Government I confess that I would prefer a monopoly by an Irish Government, but I think the principle is detestable. I think the Minister agrees with that. As far as I can see under Section 94 the Minister provides himself with powers for taking over as a monopoly the flour milling industry in this country. Why? He can purchase plant, machinery and equipment, in fact, do everything that a milling corporation would be able to do. Under this section the Minister may come in and say "I have got to invent a Flour Milling Supply Board which will have seven directors who are responsible to me." They are responsible to him so long as he wants them to be responsible to him, but when the Dáil wants to make them responsible to it they are not responsible. Can he not create any kind of body he likes in order to facilitate him in carrying on the milling industry in this country? He can do "all such other acts and things that he may consider necessary for the carrying on of such business as a commercial undertaking."

"On any land acquired by him under the immediately preceding section."

What further powers does he want? In this Committee we are giving these enormous powers to the Minister, gallantly supported as he is by the Chief Whip of the Government and one zealous and industrious ranker of the Fianna Fáil Party. I congratulate the Minister in accepting this accolade with such glorious insouciance.

There seems to me to be a peculiar contradiction here. The section talks of milling wheat on land and growing wheat in premises. I think we ought to have a definition of millable wheat or otherwise we will not know where we are.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 269, 270, 271 not moved.
Section 95 agreed to.
Amendments 272, 273 not moved.
Section 96 agreed to.
Amendments 274 and 275 not moved.
Section 97 agreed to.
Amendment 276 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 98 stand part of the Bill."

On that question may I ask the Minister if he will incorporate, on Report Stage, words in this section, specifically declaring that the account of such bodies as he may set up under the preceding section will be open for examination by the Public Accounts Committee of this Dáil?

Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 97 cover that point.

Provided it does I am satisfied, but I am afraid they could wriggle out of it.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 99 agreed to.
Schedules 1, 2 and 3, and the Title were agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported with amendments.
Report Stage to be taken on Wednesday, 30th November.
The Dáil rose at 2.35 p.m. and adjourned to Wednesday, 30th November, at 3 p.m.
Top
Share