Vol. 53 No. 13
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 2, Section 2 (1), to delete lines 23, 24, and 25 and insert the following new sub-section before sub-section (2):—
(2) Every word and expression used in this Act to which a particular meaning is given by the Principal Act for the purposes of that Act has in this Act the meaning so given to it.
This is purely a drafting amendment. designed to effect certain changes in the section. There is a qualification of its meaning.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 12, Section 15, paragraph (e), line 59, to insert after the word "licence" the words "in relation to any commodity which is for the time being a reserved commodity within the meaning of the said Part III."
I would like to ask the Minister are all the amendments now on the green paper because there were several white papers circulated as well?
They are all on the green paper now.
This amendment is consequential on a later amendment.
Can the Minister say what is the later amendment?
It is the one which makes it possible to have an order under Part III of the Bill limited in time.
Perhaps before dealing with this amendment I might ask if the Minister refers to amendment No. 4?
Yes, it is amendment No. 4. We can discuss both amendment No. 2 and amendment No. 4 together. As the Bill was introduced when an order was made declaring any commodity to be a reserved commodity no power was conferred upon the Executive Council to limit that order in the matter of time. It is considered desirable that in relation to any class of goods that may be declared to be a reserved commodity under that Part of the Bill that that reservation should be only for a stated period and that when the order is made the duration of the order should be indicated. That is the purpose of amendment No. 4, which reads:—
In page 13, before Section 16 (4), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) In making an order under this section the Executive Council may, if they so think fit, fix the period during which such order is to remain in force.
Amendment No. 2 provides in the case of any company which is engaged in the manufacture of a commodity under a licence conferred under Part III of the Bill that if the licence ceases to be operative, due to the expiration of the time for which the order was valid, the ordinary provisions of the Control of Manufactures Act will apply in relation to that company.
I should like the Minister to give an indication of the type of commodity which he has in mind. I take it that the Minister must have some class of commodity in mind under which the persons given this licence would be deprived of the protection that the licence particularly gives them. I would like to know what really the Minister's intentions are because there seems to be quite a number of things involved in this. The doing away with the licence after a firm had established themselves here, is a matter that is in question. If the intention of the Act is really effective with regard to the firm, then that would leave the firm here with the monopoly. No other competitor would be likely to come into the market and the effect would be to leave the firm with the conditions imposed on it under the various headings in Section 2, conditions dealing with wages, work, production, etc. On the face of it some further explanation from the Minister as to what he has in mind should be given. To my mind, the meaning of limiting the licence would mean giving the particular firm a chance of developing into a monopoly and then relieving them of restrictions which it was thought necessary to impose upon them when they were given the monopoly.
The order under Part III of the Bill is something different from the licence issued following the making of an order which order declares a particular commodity to be a reserved commodity. The main effect of the order is to prohibit any person engaging in the manufacture of that commodity without a licence. The cancellation of that order whether due to the expiration of time or to any other cause would then permit any person qualified under Part II of the Bill to engage in the manufacture of that commodity. The company which under Part II of the Bill required a licence would still require a licence to engage in the manufacture of that commodity, but the company which would be entitled to do it without a licence could do it without a licence because the order was no longer valid. This amendment is intended to provide that the restrictions imposed by making the order under Part III will not operate indefinitely but shall only operate for a definite period. It is undoubtedly correct that the fact of making an order under Part III of the Bill and then conferring a licence upon a particular company or companies to manufacture the commodity would give that company or companies a monopoly and when the order ceased to be valid, due to the expiration of time, they would be established in the market and would be able to compete effectively against any newcomer. The effect of the section is to give it to them indefinitely and that is unsatisfactory.
The Minister will find it difficult to explain that the amendment would do anything but set up a monopoly. The licence will require them to conform to certain regulations regarding maximum price, pay, charge for production, the nature of their production, the mode of manufacture, the employment of nationals, the extent of raw materials used and whether produced in the Free State and quite a number of rather useful provisions like that. The Minister's proposal contemplates the possibility that, after persons had established themselves here in a monopolistic position under a licence, those restrictions would be taken off them, and that they would be perfectly free to do what they liked with regard to raw materials, minimum and maximum price, quality, mode of manufacture, packing and management?
Not quite. The Deputy is again mixing up the order with the licence. An external company engaging in the manufacture of any article here which had been made a reserved commodity by an order under Part III, and which had been granted a licence under Part III, if it wished to continue in the manufacture of those articles after the expiration of the order under Part III, would require a licence under Part II—a licence to which could be attached any of the conditions that may be attached to a Part II licence. They would cover the employment of nationals, the use of Saorstát materials, and things of that kind. The conditions would not cover all the conditions that might be attached to a Part III licence, such as maximum price and so forth. In those circumstances it would be open to any person qualified as a national of Saorstát Eireann, or any company entitled to operate without a Part II licence, to engage in the production of the same commodity in competition with the existing concerns. At any rate the period of duration of the order will be a matter which will be brought to the Dáil for approval, and which must be approved of by the Dáil before the order can become effective, and before anybody engages in the manufacture of the commodity concerned or gets a licence under that Part of the Bill. Full information regarding the intentions of the Government and of the Dáil as to the duration of the order will be available to everybody in advance.
Surely the Minister will agree that the limitations with regard to licences which may be imposed upon a manufacturer under Part II do not apply to nationals.
No.
The position then is that in so far as nationals are concerned they may be given a particularly privileged position under Part III with the restrictions that I mentioned, and that if the period is knocked out then a national monopoly established here is completely relieved of all the restrictions that I mentioned.
But it would not be in any sense a monopoly.
But surely if a national is in the same position as a non-national, if he gets a monopoly here he can build up his industry, or if it is a company it can build up an industry here and establish itself in such a way as to squeeze out any possible competitor. The Minister, I am sure, does not contemplate that under Part III all the monopolies which will be established will be non-national monopolies. He may have power under Section 2 to put in any kind of restriction he likes on a licence, although if he has that power I do not see why the details would not be specified in Part II in the same way as they are specified in Part III. Leaving non-nationals out of consideration, as regards a national of the State coming in under Part III, as the Minister expects many of them will, if the order has a limited period then the restriction he is subject to with regard to the use of native materials, the employment of non-nationals in his concern, either as workers or as managers, and all those other restrictions with regard to maximum price, quality, etc., go by the board.
I think criticism from the opposite angle of that taken by Deputy Mulcahy could be much more strongly used with regard to this amendment. Is it not conceivable that a manufacturer looking over the possibilities which Part III of this Bill offers him would be rather deterred by the prospect that his monopoly is only to be given for a certain fixed period?
That could be argued, too. I will let the Deputy argue that.
The mere introduction of this almost suggests to a subsequent Dáil the possibility of reducing the period. With regard to the principal point in Deputy Mulcahy's criticism, surely with the example of sugar before him he will see that the possibilities of holding a monopoly when the legislation that established that monopoly is no longer operative would not be very strong; that a firm having pioneered a business, having trained employees, having spread information through the country with regard to the processes of manufacture and so on would not, if its monopoly powers were removed, be at all in the strong position which General Mulcahy visualises. I should rather think that a manufacturer looking ahead would see a danger, having, perhaps, gone to great trouble and worked without any great profit for a number of years that, when his privileges were taken from him by the mere expiration of the term fixed in the order, very intense competition might arise—competition which might have the goodwill of the Government of the day. In my opinion the objections to the amendment from the opposite angle to that which Deputy Mulcahy suggests are very much stronger indeed than the objections he has raised. I should like to know from the Minister whether it is intended to make this compulsory in every case. Is it at the option of the Executive Council?
In view of the opposition to this amendment I do not desire to press it. I thought I was meeting the Opposition in introducing it. If they do not want it, I do not want to force it on them.
Let not this amendment pass from the attention of the House without this much being said: the whole principle underlying Part III of the Bill is rotten. In order to get its rottenness overlooked, Section 22 was put in, with all the beautiful conditions. Section 22 and this amendment are simply the Prices Commission in the tariff ramp. They are put in in order to create a sense of false security. Exactly the same thing would happen in the event of the Minister getting this amendment carried through as happened in connection with the Prices Commission. Suppose he gets power to fix the time limit, it would be said "Dail Eireann has the control of this question. This matter will have to be discussed with Dáil Eireann." What in fact will happen is that the Minister will come in with the order. The Fianna Fáil Party will withdraw to the library to correspond with their constituents. When the division bell rings they will march into the Lobby and vote for any order which the Minister for Industry and Commerce stands over. Criticism of that procedure will be answered on the Minister's part by saying "Oh, but there is a time limit fixed. This man who is going to get a monopoly will be exposed to the full blast of competition just after he has been able to struggle to his feet." What will in fact happen and what must happen if the Minister wants some commodity which has to be declared a reserve commodity under Part III, is that he must get a manufacturer who is prepared to undertake the work. The manufacturer will go into the Minister's office and say "Well if I am to put my money and my work into that scheme I must have sufficient time to establish myself in an effective monopoly for all time." The Minister will say "We must put in some time limit. We must put up some show of respectability when I am pushing this order through the House. How long will it take you to get a monopoly? How long will it take you to firmly dig yourself in?" The manufacturer will assess the period of time which will be necessary to give him a strangle hold on the market in that particular commodity in this country. He will then put four or five years on to that and say: "Let that be the period of the order." Of course, having got the order in those terms he will operate his monopoly. The pro tection of the reserved commodity order will fall away from him at the end of the period, and he will be nominally exposed to the full blast of competition. He will, in fact, be absolutely and unshakeably entrenched in a monopoly behind a prohibitive tariff barrier. If the amendment passes as it is, it seems to me that, if Dáil Eireann makes an order declaring certain commodities to be reserved commodities, the only way to discharge that order is by another resolution of the House.
We will be told that that is protection, but, of course, it is not, and it is not, for this reason, that if the Government persuades men to sink large sums of money in any enterprise and to back a large vested interest in some undertaking that the Government induced them to go into, it becomes virtually impossible to alter the arrangement without providing compensation from the Central Fund for the individual whom the responsible Government of the day led into embarking on that enterprise. In theory, it is quite possible to remove all the protection and to say: "You took your chance and it has not come off; the Government has changed its mind and is going to withdraw the reserved commodity order," but, in practice, it is virtually impossible and will never happen.
When we were passing all this tariff legislation, the Minister for Industry and Commerce used to say that there would be no rise in prices. He gave that up after about the first six months, but when he was in the first fire of his enthusiasm, he used to laugh to scorn the suggestion that tariffs involved any increase in the cost of living, and used to say to us then: "We have secured that by setting up a Prices Commission," and the Labour Party were thrown into ecstasies of joy at the prospects of a Prices Commission. The poor old Prices Commission has met. The flour millers went into them and walked around them, under them and beneath them——
Are these remarks on this amendment or on the next?
They are dealing with the two amendments we are discussing on this Bill.
I was asking the Ceann Comhairle. Is the Deputy able to bring the Prices Commission and the flour millers investigation into order on this Bill?
There is no reference to the Prices Commission or to the flour millers in these amendments, hence a discussion of these two bodies would seem to be irrelevant.
May I submit with respect that the Chair's reputation for justice and honesty in disposing of matters as between Deputies of this House makes him strangely unsuited for the task of tracing the extremely devious processes of reasoning which the Minister for Industry and Commerce occasionally employs.
On this amendment?
I am submitting to the House that he sought to defend the tariff ramp by offering the consumer a Prices Commission, as he is seeking to defend Part III of the Control of Manufactures Bill, 1934, by offering the consumer Section 22, as amended by the two amendments standing in his name. I am pointing out that when, in fact, the Prices Commission was put into operation——
On a point of order, the two amendments we are discussing relate, one to Section 15, and the other to Section 16.
Yes, but both have repercussions on Section 22. The Executive Council is here empowered to place a restriction as to time upon an order, and this is meant to supplement the restrictions which they are entitled to incorporate in a licence issued under an order.
The licence is not under discussion now.
The order under which it is issued is. It is extremely difficult to follow——
Very!
——the lucubrations of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and it very often takes time to unravel the twisted proposals he brings before the House. You will notice that he becomes extremely uneasy when the process of unravelling proceeds. When the Prices Commission was put into operation in order to restore the confidence of the unfortunate consumer, he came to realise at a very early stage that the protected manufacturers could make fools of the Prices Commission when they wanted to, and could, eventually, arrive at a stage when they would say to the Prices Commission: "Now try and find out what you want to find out—try to arrive at any conclusion," and the Prices Commission was absolutely helpless, as they will be.
I forewarned the House that the safeguards which these amendments proposed to put into the order that will be made under Part III, and the safeguards adumbrated in Section 22 for incorporation in a licence, will prove every bit as ineffective, because the total effect of Part III of this Bill is to set up monopolies in this country, which, once entrenched and well established, will walk on this Dáil and on everybody else who tries to cross their path. We are seeing that situation develop in this country at the present time; we are seeing a situation in which the interests of the consuming public are being absolutely forgotten, and before I pass from this amendment I want to say that I commend the attention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to a report that was recently issued in connection with the affairs of Newfoundland. It outlines the causes for the economic collapse of Newfoundland. It was set up on the occasion of Newfoundland inviting the British Government practically to take over the Government of that Dominion, and it pointed out that the economic collapse of Newfoundland resulted on a policy very similar to what we are pursuing in this country, and that is, that the principal industry of Newfoundland, the fishing industry, was forgotten, and allowed to sink into practical ruin.
It does not demand great perspicacity in the Chair to see that the Deputy, from the points of view of geography and relevancy, has wandered far from the amendment before the House.
I am not seeking to trespass or to go beyond the relevancy of these particular amendments or the sections to which they refer. All I say is that the policy enshrined in this section and in this amendment is heading this country, in my opinion, straight for the condition which brought about the economic collapse of that country.
An argument which would be quite in order on the Second Stage of the Bill but not on Report Stage in relation to two specific amendments.
All I can say is that for those reasons and for the analogy between the position which, I believe, these amendments, or the sections to which they refer, will produce, I think these amendments are highly imprudent, and while I do not believe that the insertion or non-insertion of the amendment is going to make any material difference to the eventual outcome of the operation of Part III of the Bill, I warn the House that it is all part of a scheme which this House will very much regret having to put into operation.
(General Mulcahy rose.)
On the Report Stage of a Bill Deputies may speak only once. Deputies may speak once to an amendment, and once on the Report Stage. I have allowed considerable liberty and I shall hear Deputy Mulcahy again. That liberty must not develop into licence.
The Minister has indicated that if this amendment is opposed he will withdraw it. I have not the slightest desire to mould this measure in any other way than that in which the Minister wants to mould it. The Minister has complained already with regard to the Control of Manufactures Act that if certain things had not been done with that Act some of the things we complain about in regard to the development of industry here would not exist to-day. None of us believe that, and in discussing this matter here now I simply want to know what the thing is about. The Minister's presentation of his amendment here shows that he really does not know what it is about, and that he does not know what the effect is likely to be on any order he may issue. It has, perhaps, been suggested to him that these ideas of orders and licences ought not to be eternal. I have pointed out to him certain things that may happen under a period order of this particular kind in certain directions, and Deputy Moore has pointed out the effect that there may be in other directions.
If the Executive Council can make an order declaring something to be a reserved commodity and that is putting the reserved commodity resolution into active operation, I take it that they can annul that order. The Minister takes no power over the annulment of a licence except on the application of the person who has the licence, or where a person has committed an offence. But surely the Minister does not intend that a contract entered into with some particular firm or persons to come in and establish themselves here as a monopoly over a certain area is going to be an eternal thing? As far as paying certain compensation on the annulment of it is concerned, that is certainly a matter very much in the future. But I think that, if a monopoly is handed over to any particular firm, whether national or non-national, to develop an industry here which is very much protected all round, you are making a present of a certain position to that firm and whether, when that is withdrawn, another present should be issued is another thing. I think that the Minister has not fully considered the effect of putting in such a clause as this, as far as he is concerned. He is welcome to it if he wants it, but he has not fully considered the questions raised as to the difficulties it presents to himself in the carrying out of the measure.
The Deputy failed to appreciate the fact that an order when made under the Bill as now framed cannot be annulled except by fresh legislation. As the Bill stands, an order when made is made permanently.
Could it not be annulled by a resolution of the Dáil?
No.
If the Executive has power to make an order, surely they have power to annul it?
Not unless that is stated in the Act. In this case they are given power to make an order which cannot become effective until approved of by the Dáil. There is no procedure laid down for the cancellation of the order. Cancellation will require legislation— legislation which could not be introduced without a breach of faith with those to whom licences have been given, unless at the date on which the order was made it was understood by those who received the licence, and agreed to by them, that the special position conferred upon them by the making of the order and the granting of the licence was going to terminate after the expiration of the particular period. The proposal in the amendment is to take power to fix, at the date upon which the order is made, the duration of the period for which the commodity will be a reserved commodity in respect of which the provisions of Part III of the Bill will apply. We think it is desirable that there should be power to fix the duration of the order if it is thought fit to do so. The amendment does not require that a date should be fixed in respect of every order. It only gives power to fix a date on which the order will cease automatically to have effect if it is thought fit to impose that restriction.
I am not pressing the amendment. I think it is an improvement on the Bill, however, and, therefore, I introduce it. I thought also that it would meet some of the objections raised to this Part of the Bill during the Committee Stage discussion. If there is strong objection to it I am quite prepared to withdraw it; but if the Deputies opposite are not objecting to it, then I prefer that it should be inserted in the Bill.
What would happen if the Dáil passed a resolution withdrawing their approval of the order?
Nothing. I am afraid it would have no effect.
According to sub-section (5) of Section 16 no order under the section shall come into force until a resolution has been passed by the Dáil approving of such order. The Minister is advised that once a resolution is passed the rescinding of the resolution at a later date would not operate to withdraw the statutory effect from the licence.
No, it would require the enactment of an Act.
Has the Minister any figures in his mind as to the periods with regard to particular industries that he thinks may be designated reserved commodities—would it be 30 or 40 or ten or 20 years?
The period in my mind would be 15 or 20 years.
It seems to me that in that case a manufacturer would be much more nervous in taking advantage of the Bill because of the amendment. Fifteen years is not a very long time in the life of an industry, and he might see the possibility of these maximum prices limiting very seriously his profits for several of the first years. Consequently if, after a period of 15 years, all his privileges were to be withdrawn there might not be a very great inducement to him to negotiate. I rather think that that objection is much more serious than the objection of Deputy Mulcahy. I certainly would like to see the amendment withdrawn from that point of view.
The matter the Deputy mentions is obviously one for discussion and negotiation between the Government and the persons whom they were hoping to get to engage in particular industrial processes. I do not contemplate that an order will be made in respect of any industry except as a necessary step in the establishment of an industry here and following discussions with the interested parties. In that case, the question of the date of the duration of the order, the date which will be fixed for its expiration, would be all questions that would arise for settlement during the course of these discussions beforehand.
My touchstone in the matter is whether manufacturers reading this Act or hearing of it will be likely to come and negotiate with the Government. It is rather the inducement to negotiate with the Government than what would develop during the negotiations that I have in mind.
I am afraid I do not hope for anything more than this in relation to industries in respect to which orders will be made—that the Government will be able to go after and find manufacturers. I have not very much hope that they will come to the Government.
I should like the Minister to clarify the position a little more. The Minister's difficulty appears to be, and he is trying to meet it by this amendment, that if an order was made without having fixed the period there is no machinery for fixing the period or annulling the order. At the same time, he tells us that the order, as a matter of fact, may or may not have a fixed period. In case an order is issued which has not a fixed period what will happen if the Government require to terminate the order? Is the Minister covering that case by this amendment? If an amendment is being put in to cover the cases it ought to cover them fully. The Minister stated that there will be two classes of orders, one with a fixed period and the other without a fixed period. I understand from his statement that his amendment covers only the orders that will be made for a fixed period. What will happen the others? In case the Minister, in some years time, wants to terminate an order, has he power under this?
No, nor should he have it. If he enters into a contract with particular persons, as a result of which they invest large sums of money in some industrial process here, there should not be power to alter the terms of that contract except by agreement. If there was an agreement then, of course, there would be no objection to the introduction of whatever legislation is required.
You still will not have the power?
Quite definitely will not have the power to break that contract.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 13, Section 16 (1), line 20, to delete the word "under" and substitute the words "made under and in accordance with."
This is purely verbal.
I move amendment No. 4, the subject-matter of which has already been discussed:—
In page 13, before Section 16 (4), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
In making an order under this section the Executive Council may, if they so think fit, fix the period during which such order is to remain in force.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 13, before Section 16 (4), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
The following provisions shall have effect in relation to the making of an order under this section, that is to say:—
(a) before making such order the Executive Council shall publish, in the Iris Oifigiúil and in such other manner as they think best adapted for making public their intention to make such order, a notice of such intention, and such notice shall state the commodity or commodities the subject of the proposed order, and, if the Executive Council propose -to fix a period during which such order is to remain in force, the period proposed to be so fixed, and shall also state the time (in this sub-section referred to as the time limited for making objections) within which any objections to the making of such order may be made, and the time limited for making objections to be so stated shall not in any case be less than 30 days after the date of the publication in the Iris Oifigiúil of such notice;
(b) any person objecting to the making of such order may within the time limited for making objections send a statement in writing to the Executive Council of his objection and of the specific ground on which it is based;
(c) the Executive Council shall not make such order until the expiration of the time limited for making objections and until they have considered such objections (if any) to the making of such order as may have been made within the time limited for making objections.
During the discussion on the Committee Stage, objection was taken to the terms of Section 16, on the ground that inadequate notice might be given of the intention to make an order, and that, consequently, members of the Dáil and interested parties throughout the country would have little opportunity of preparing their case against the order, if they had any case at all. I indicated that I was quite prepared to provide in the Bill that a fairly substantial period should elapse between the date upon which the intention of the Government became known and the order became effective. It is proposed here that if the Executive Council intend to make an order declaring any commodity to be a reserved commodity, notice of their intention shall be published, and at the same time an indication could be given of the period, which shall not be less than 30 days, within which any persons may make any objection they wish to the making of such an order by the Executive Council. It provides that the Executive Council shall consider all such objections and that the actual implementation of its intention shall not take place until the expiration of the time within which objection may be made and fixed on the occasion of the publication of the intention to make the order. That will provide, not merely that every person engaged in any industrial or commercial occupation in the country will be able to bring before the Executive Council any objection that he may have to the making of such an order, but also before members of the Oireachtas, so that full and adequate information will be available when the question of approval of the order arises for discussion in the Dáil.
The suggestion may be made that the objections received to the making of an order should be published in some way or conveyed to members of the Dáil, but it is quite obvious that there are strong arguments against that course. Persons may not be disposed to make objections, which would have to have very serious consideration given to them, unless they were assured that their objection, or even the fact that they had made it, was not going to be made public. There are persons who would be, for various reasons, disinclined to appear in the picture if they knew that the fact that they had made an objection and the nature of the objection would be published. I think the procedure outlined in the amendment is the best to meet the point raised in Committee. It provides adequate time between the notice of the intention and the actual making of the order, and it provides machinery for the making and the consideration of objections to the order.
I take it that there will be this period of a month before a resolution of the sort indicated can be actually introduced into the Dáil, and I take it there is no limitation to the classes of persons or the interests that may make objections to the Executive Council in this matter?
There is no limitation, and I think it is best that there should be no limitation.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 16 are cognate to amendment No. 6, but as they introduce new matter of substance, they are out of order. However, I shall allow the Deputy, when he moves amendment No. 6—on which, of course, he may challenge a division—to refer to the subject-matter of amendments Nos. 8 and 16, if he so desires.
I beg to move amendment No. 6:—
In page 13, Section 16 (4), line 28, after the word "resolution" to insert the following words:—"of which one month's notice shall have been given."
My object in inserting this amendment was that the House would have at least one month's notice that a proposition of this particular kind was coming before it. Under the Bill as introduced the Minister could give the usual four days' notice of a proposal to pass a resolution and that resolution could be put through the House by the Government majority, making a particular commodity a reserved commodity. Then the Executive Council would be in the position to make an agreement in respect of any commodity, and to enter into that very particular type of sacred contract that the Minister indicated; that is, a contract that would involve a resolution of this House to annul. As some Deputies have indicated, it might involve legislation that would include compensation at the expense of the public to somebody who was supposed to be affected by the withdrawal of the licence. The amendment that the Minister has moved gives, I submit, nothing but breathing space to the House. It gives promise of no information, good, bad or indifferent, from the Minister to the House and I feel that, together with the Minister's amendment, amendment 6 is also required,
I feel a bit hampered by the short notice that amendments 8 and 16 are out of order. I received notice to-day only at question time, and in the circumstances I would like to take advantage of the Ceann Comhairle's suggestion that I might refer to the subject-matter of them. The Minister does not promise a scrap of information and we all have experience of the difficulty of getting information from him; even Deputy Moore has experienced that difficulty. I want to provide machinery so that when making a proposal to this House that involves the House in such very serious contracts and possible consequences, certain clearly necessary information should be given. I think the Minister would be treating the subject in a very haphazard way and would be treating the House in a very light fashion if, when asking the House to enable him to enter into such serious contracts, he refused to give the House the information under the particular headings I have detailed here in the Schedule.
I think that when the Minister is going definitely to make an inquiry, whatever be the body that will make that inquiry for him, the inquiry should range over the items mentioned in the Schedule and that this House should, if a resolution is put before it, be told the total quantity and value of the commodity manufactured in Saorstát Eireann during the last year or three years and should get information with regard to the total quantity and value of the imports which it was necessary to introduce into the Free State in order to supply the market here, where there was a lack of the commodity manufactured here; that we should have some information as to the effect on the revenue of making this item a reserved commodity. I feel that we should have full information with regard to the employment given already in the making of that commodity here and with regard to the employment that it was contemplated would be given; that we should have some information as to what was involved to the distributing trade here, because there are some articles that, perhaps, a careful inquiry might disclose, are manufactured here, and if they were manufactured here and the machinery of distribution radically altered we might lose as much in employment and as much in the earning capacity of a considerable section of our population as we would gain by having some of them turned over to the manufacturing end, and that when taking into consideration the possibility that in some of those industries it might be necessary to import the greater part of the raw materials, the national result might not be of such a kind as to warrant going through the process of establishing the industry, through the machinery of this Bill at any rate. I think also that the House should be given some information as to the wholesale and retail prices of the commodity in Saorstát Eireann for the last couple of years and some indication as to what the effect of the Minister's proposal, in setting up the industry here as a reserved commodity, would have on the wholesale and retail prices; and that, as well as that, we should have some information as to the extent to which non-nationals were going to be employed as workers in the industry and on the managerial side. We should also have some information as to the extent to which the raw materials for the development of the industry are available here, and, if they are not available here, where they are going to be got from, what they are, and the probable total cost of the import of raw materials every year.
In putting down amendments of this particular kind, however, I was tempted to do so by reason of the spirit in which the Minister discussed Part III of the Bill here in Committee. The Minister was not so sure at all that he had, or that he knew where to go to find, the machinery that would safely guide him in carrying out the necessary examination or in coming to the desirable conclusions in cases of these particular kinds. I did not want to suggest to the Minister any particular machinery, but I wanted to suggest to him what that particular machinery would do in a certain way and leave it open to him to use whatever machinery was best, whether the machinery of his Department, or that of the Tariff Commission, or that of any other special body he might wish to set up to examine the matter. I think, however, that the Minister will not be treating his responsibilities properly in the matter, in view of the nature of the contracts that are going to be entered into, if he comes to this House with simply a proposal and without any detailed or systematised presentation with regard to the industry as it stands and the industry when he expects to have it developed. He may receive objections of all kinds, but I do not think his approach to the matter should be guided by the type of objections he receives. I think that, as well as hearing some of the results of his consideration of these objections, we should also hear in this House the full results of his wider and more systematic examination of his proposals.
I take it, Sir, that I am not able to move amendment No. 8 or amendment No. 16. In view of the amendment the Minister has already moved, I do not know that any useful purpose would be served in pressing No. 6, but I should like to hear from the Minister as to the general kind of information he proposes to put before the House when putting up his resolutions, and I should also like to hear whether or not he would have been glad to accept amendment No. 8 and amendment No. 16 if they had been presented to him on the Committee Stage, and if he was not in the position that the Ceann Comhairle was now ruling them out of order.
I do not think I would. I fully agree with the Deputy, however, that all possible information that is available and that can be published, having regard to the effect of its publication, should be made available to the Dáil when the motion for the approval of an order is being discussed or put before us. Such procedure, however, and making it a statutory requirement on the Minister to furnish that information in the form of a written report, are very different things, because, in relation to a number of industries, the information which the Deputy says must be made available either would not be available at all or could not be published without doing considerable damage to individual interests. Therefore, the element of discretion must be exercisable. I do not want to go through the various items here, but merely to give an indication of the type of difficulties I see. As far as No. 1 is concerned, any information that the Department of Industry and Commerce has, or could have, concerning the total quantity and value of a particular class of goods, either manufactured in the Saorstát or imported into the Saorstát, is published. It is published in so far as it is possible to publish it, because, in respect of manufacture, there might be some limitation under the Statistics Acts which might prevent us from disclosing information which could be identified as concerning a particular firm.
The ordinary publication, to which the Minister refers, does not meet this.
It does to a large extent. No doubt, more up-to-date information can be given in reply to a Parliamentary question than is available in the published reports, but the published reports are intended to contain all the information on that point. As far as No. 3 is concerned, that is a matter in which information could be obtained easily in reply to a Parliamentary question. Numbers 4 and 5 relate to the total employment given over a specified period, and the total wages paid over a specified period. Again, in so far as that information comes through official channels in the Department of Industry and Commerce and is capable of being published in a manner which is permitted under the Statistics Acts, that information is published; but if there is only one firm concerned, and if the information, when available, is identifiable with the particular firm, then we not merely officially consider it undesirable to publish the information but we are actually debarred by statute from doing so, and it is desirable that it should be so. In so far, however, as it is possible to give that information to the Dáil, I agree that it should be given, but I do not agree that it should be a statutory obligation. The only way to bring that about would be to proceed to amend the Acts which, under certain circumstances, debar us at the present time from publishing certain information and to amend them in such a way as to give us power to get the information and to compel the firm or firms concerned to furnish that information knowing that it was intended for publication.
So far as No. 6 is concerned, the information there is, undoubtedly, information that should be given to the Dáil in support of any motion for the approval of an order. No. 7 comes in much the same category as Nos. 4 and 5, and No. 8 would have to be very largely an estimate. So far as No. 9 is concerned, it is very doubtful if the information could be obtained. I am not quite sure of the machinery that is to be employed for that——
The Prices Commission.
The Prices Commission could not fix the prices within one month.
I hope the Minister will think of that "for more than a month."
The Prices Commission would take at least two weeks to make people realise that their investigation was serious. In view of the difficulties of that kind it would take at least two weeks. In regard to amendments Nos. 10 and 11 I must say that again it would be a case where in relation to these matters information may be made available without any difficulty whatever. In other cases, it would be obviously withheld. I agree with regard to amendments Nos. 12 and 13 that the information should be made available. It could be put at the disposal of the House. But, on general principles, I say that the Dáil should not agree to accept any motion of the kind contemplated in Section 16 unless it was fully satisfied on all the points or nearly all the points referred to in Deputy Mulcahy's Schedule. In saying that, I think it would be undesirable that a statutory obligation of the kind should be placed upon the Department of Industry and Commerce to make that information available in the particular form that Deputy Mulcahy suggests. I think the Deputy can be certain that having regard to the information available and to the machinery open to the Deputies and the actual discussion that takes place upon motions that all the information that should be made available will, in fact, be made available before the motion is approved of.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 13, Section 16 (4), line 28, to delete the words "Dáil Eireann" and substitute therefor the words "both Houses of the Oireachtas."
The Minister's proposal is that, on resolution passed here, he can go and make any contracts which seem desirable to him—contracts which involve entering into very serious undertakings, so serious that it would take legislation to break them. I know that we have had a Bill passed through this House wiping out the Seanad. But the Seanad is not gone yet and it may not go for some time. It may not go at all. I think it is a most exceptional departure from precedent that a matter of this kind should be dealt with by resolution passed in the Dáil without its having to come before the Seanad at all. There is no part of our financial business transacted here that does not come to be reviewed in one way or another by the Seanad. Money Bills are sent on to the Seanad. It cannot hold up Money Bills but any Bill passed here can be held up by the Seanad. If so held up it cannot become law within 18 months after its being sent to the Seanad. I submit that the passing of a resolution of this particular kind should go to the Seanad as well. There might be some kind of restriction on the Seanad in holding up a matter in the same way as there is restriction placed upon them in dealing with Bills sent up by the Dáil. But to put the Dáil in the position, on its own resolution, to do what would require legislation by the two Houses of the Oireachtas is quite unprecedented. I submit that this resolution should be submitted to both Houses.
In proposing that the order to be made under Part III of the Bill should become effective when approved of by the Dáil only, I had not referred to the existing situation only but also to any situation that was likely to exist here so long as the present constitution of the Oireachtas remains. The Executive Council is elected by and is responsible to the Dáil. It cannot function except it commands a majority in the Dáil. There is a constitutional requirement which makes it illegal for it to continue to act if it has lost the confidence of a majority of the Dáil. There is no such requirement in respect of the Seanad. It may happen at any time that the Executive Council has not got the confidence of the majority of the Seanad. The present Executive Council has not that confidence. It could not with any certainty propose measures in the hope that they would be passed by the Seanad.
In dealing with matters of this kind it seems to me that it is the Dáil that is mainly concerned, because the particular safeguards which were erected under this Part of the Bill could to some extent be furnished in another way in what could properly be described as finance measures over which the Seanad would have no power. It is most undesirable that objectives of this kind should be achieved otherwise than by direct legislation of this nature. I would be very slow to adopt any device of taxes or impositions designed to achieve the same end, merely because of the difficulty of securing the enactment of any Bill. But, having regard to the fact that the Executive Council must enter into prolonged negotiations with very large and important groups or corporations, negotiations involving an expenditure by those persons of very substantial sums of money, it is obviously desirable that the Executive Council through those negotiations should be in the position of saying: "Well, so long as we retain the confidence of the Dáil we will be able to get the approval of the agreement on the merits." On the other hand, no matter what the outcome of the negotiations may be or how favourable the negotiations may be to the people of this country, there is always the possibility of their being rejected in the other House upon Party grounds or upon political considerations. They may be rejected because the members of the Seanad may have a different outlook. It is for that reason only that this particular provision was inserted in the Bill. It is an arguable case, and having regard to the needs of the country, to the present situation and to the situation that may exist until the Seanad ceases to be operative, I think it is desirable that this section should remain unaltered.
Deputy Mulcahy mentioned that the Seanad has to approve of any Bill passed by the Dáil and can hold up any Bill except Money Bills. The Seanad can hold up any Bill. But if it rejects a motion of approval of this kind its rejection would be final, unlike a Bill which would become law in 18 months despite the Seanad. That, in itself, is another reason why the Dáil alone should be brought into consideration in this matter. The tendency in all countries is to increase the power of the Executive to do things by regulations and orders which some years ago would only be done by legislation.
That is a polite way of saying that dictatorships are to run the country.
It is quite a different thing, and I would be glad to raise that matter again with the Deputy at some other time.
The Minister might excogitate the logical sequence of that line of thought.
I am merely saying it would be quite practicable to provide that having got from the Legislative Assembly, having got from the Parliament of the country, authority to make such orders, the Executive should be allowed to do so without further reference to Parliament. We decided it was not sufficient merely to get the approval of the Parliament for the making of these orders by the Executive, but that in the exercise of the powers the Executive should again be subject to Parliament. That is why the Bill is framed in the particular form in which it is framed. It was purely practical considerations that made it appear to us incumbent that only the Dáil, and not the Dáil and Seanad, would be asked to approve of the measures of the Executive.
There used to be a saying "In vino veritas.” I do not charge the Minister with being “In veritas” but he does very occasionally lead us off to numerous——
I just want to make myself clear by pointing out that I did not pursue this particular line of argument. On the contrary, I definitely and deliberately said that I was not going to do so. I trust Deputy Dillon is not going to take up a few chance remarks of mine for the purpose of initiating a discussion when he knows I will not have an opportunity of replying to him.
I never charged the Minister with being a bad man at getting himself out of a mess.
The Deputy knows that I cannot reply to him.
No man in this House can take himself out of a boghole with greater expedition or with less regard to what measures may be necessary in order to extricate himself. That does not alter the fact that the Minister sometimes gets into a boghole. He let us have a glimpse of his mind to-day, and in that he is a loyal follower of his leader, who said at one time in my presence here that it would be a much better thing if this Dáil would "shut up" for a while and let him run the country. The Minister for Industry and Commerce notes with satisfaction the development of a tendency throughout the world whereby legislation is becoming more and more the province of the Executive, and less and less that of Parliament.
I said nothing of the kind.
It is a very interesting development, and it is a development which I hope will never wax strong in this country. It is interesting to observe that it usually waxes strong in the hands of men who are clamouring that the country is in danger of a dictatorship, and when the clamour dies down you will discover that the Cassandras who have been warning the country against a dictatorship have by some extraordinary metamorphosis become dictators themselves. The Minister is mildness itself to-day. He refers to the Seanad with feeling and with tact. Lest its feelings might be hurt, he does not even refer to the crude fact of the pending abolition of the Seanad. What is happening? The last time the Minister was speaking about the Seanad he was thumping the desk. He was saying if this House thought that Fianna Fáil was going to leave this country in the hands of the Jamesons and the Granards he for one was not going to do it. Does the Minister remember that?
Even if the Minister does remember it, he may not refer to it in this debate.
I am suggesting to the Minister that the Seanad should be given a voice in the determination of whether licences or orders should be made. I think I am entitled to refer to the fact that on the last occasion on which the Minister was speaking about the Seanad he referred to it in those terms. I think I am entitled to draw the attention of the House to the fact that he does not employ that language to-day. I think that is a perfectly legitimate comment on the observations we have heard from the Minister, because, having had a diatribe on the subject of the Jamesons and the Granards, we discovered that the Minister himself on matters political was beholden to the Jamesons and the Granards, and that having wrapped the green flag round them here for the purpose of holding them up to public odium in Dáil Eireann he was reluctantly forced to admit that he himself, the Party and the country, had been beholden to them.
The Deputy got from the Chair a hint that the matter was not in order in this debate. This is not the first occasion on which the Deputy has attempted to circumvent the ruling of the Chair and to revert to matters ruled out as irrelevant.
I am submitting that the Seanad is a body manifestly suitable to share in the deliberations of this House on the question of making an order under this Bill or the issuing of licences. I submit I am entitled to refer to the attitude of the Minister for Industry and Commerce on previous occasions and to compare it with his present attitude.
That is precisely what Deputies are not entitled to do. To reply in one debate to speeches made in former debates is decidedly not in order.
If you so rule I will bow to your ruling.
That has been the practice for 12 years, a practice strictly enforced by my predecessor.
It is not my intention for a single moment to question your ruling. I am, however, prepared to submit further that the Minister's objection, that giving the Seanad an opportunity of reviewing the decisions of Dáil Eireann in the matter of those licences would in fact give the Seanad an opportunity of holding up those orders indefinitely, does not hold water, because this Statute is the instrument whereby the Seanad would get the right to examine the orders or the licences issued under this Statute, and this Statute could prescribe limitations to the Seanad's power in holding up an order made under the Bill. There is no reason why the Bill should not prescribe that no order under this section shall come into force unless and until a resolution has been passed by Dáil Eireann approving of such order, and shall further not come into operation for so many weeks unless the order is further approved by Seanad Eireann. Again, it might be proposed that the order should not come into force unless and until it had been approved by Dáil Eireann and approved by Seanad Eireann, or in the event of Seanad Eireann refusing its approval that Dáil Eireann should be called upon to confirm its original motion approving the order in question. As a matter of fact the Seanad does contain a number of men who have much of interest to contribute on subjects such as would arise under the heading of those orders. It contains a number of men of wide experience in trade and industry in the country, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce has good reason to know. It seems to me that these men ought to be given an opportunity of offering their views on the proposals made under this Bill, and at the same time the ultimate power of Dáil Eireann to over-ride the Seanad within a reasonable time should also be reserved. It is obvious that if the Minister or this House came into conflict with Seanad Eireann, and had no means of resolving the conflict, the Minister could achieve a very similar purpose by the operation of the Finance Bill, and so achieve his purpose without reference to the Seanad at all. Therefore, it would be a good thing; while giving the Seanad an opportunity of reviewing those orders it would provide also that, if Dáil Eireann finds itself in conflict with Seanad Eireann, in a comparatively short time it could over-ride the Seanad's objection and proceed with its resolution approving the order submitted by the Minister.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 13, Section 16 (6), line 39, to insert after the word "commodity" the words "but shall, if such order fixes a period during which it is to remain in force, cease, from and after the expiration of such period, to be for the said purposes a reserved commodity."
This is consequential on amendment No. 4.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In page 15, Section 22 (1), paragraph (g), line 40, to insert at the end of the paragraph the words "and sold to any person carrying on business in Saorstát Eireann."
I think it was Deputy Moore raised on the Committee Stage the question of the conditions that may be attached to a licence under Part III of the Bill in respect of maximum price. The licence may have a condition attached prescribing the maximum price to be charged for any reserved commodity manufactured at a factory established under the licence. It was pointed out that it was only necessary to fix the maximum price in respect of goods sold in Saorstát Eireann and, consequently, amendment No. 11 is introduced in order to provide for that limitation.
I do not think the amendment is satisfactory. First of all, if it is not intended to fix the price for the export trade, this does not entirely prevent fixing the price for the export trade. Most likely the commodities sold for export would be sold to an exporter who would be carrying on business in Saorstát Eireann. Therefore, the amendment does not meet the point I raise. I simply said, when we were going through the Committee Stage, that I did not see why the Minister should take power to protect purchasers of a reserved commodity in foreign countries. The amendment does not meet that point. Further, it prevents the Minister from protecting the particular people in Saorstát Eireann whom he desires to protect. It is only going to fix the maximum price for such of the commodity as may be sold to any person carrying on business in Saorstát Eireann. Supposing the manufacturer sells direct to the consumer, as very many manufacturers do. In that case the maximum price will not be fixed. There has been comment about tyres in the newspapers lately. Tyre companies send quite a lot to the consumers direct. Take another case. Suppose the refining of oil became a business here under this Bill. The oil distributing companies send a great deal of their commodity direct to the consumer. I think, from the point of view of both, that the Minister is still empowered to fix the price for the export trade and, further, that he is not taking any power, as a matter of fact, that he is depriving himself of the power of fixing the price for such of the commodity as is sold direct to the consumer. I think from that point of view the amendment is quite defective and I cannot understand why it is drafted as it is.
I am not very enthusiastic about the amendment. In fact, I think the Bill would be better without it. I merely indicated a willingness to meet a point raised concerning which I had no very strong feeling one way or the other. It is almost impossible to get a form of words which would cover the idea which the Deputy has expressed, because any sale that takes place in Saorstát Eireann may be a sale to a person who proposes to export the article purchased. You cannot designate the ultimate consumer by Act of Parliament. You can only indicate that the price to be regulated is the price at which articles are sold to persons in the Saorstát. Even a person coming in from another country to buy an article here would be conducting a sale here and would be subject to any form of words such as you may design in order to regulate the conduct of sales of such commodities here. If the Deputy thinks that the amendment is unsatisfactory I am prepared to withdraw it and try my hand again.
I certainly think that the Bill would be better without the amendment. So long as the Minister shows that he has no intention or desire to fix the price of such of the commodity as may be exported, I am satisfied. The further part of it is his business, not mine. I got that opinion from him and for those who may read the debate the information will be there. This amendment certainly would not be useful.
Does Deputy Moore suggest that it would be possible to have developments under which we will be manufacturing articles here under a reserved commodity licence which will be sold at, say, 1/4, like a pound of butter, to people at home, but will be sold to people with whom we are carrying on an economic war, say, at 9d. or 10d?
I move amendment No. 12:—
In page 16, at the end of Section 22, to add a new sub-section as follows:—
Not later than one month after the granting of a reserved commodity manufacture licence, the Minister shall place on the table of each House of the Oireachtas a copy of such licence.
This is a most important amendment. Again, the Minister has told us that the fact of issuing licences under these orders will be to enter into such a contract with the persons to whom the licences are issued that it would require an Act of the Oireachtas to break the contract. That being so, every detail of the licence given to the person who is being put into the position of becoming a monopolist should be made public. The licence should be a public document, and, therefore, be placed where it is most available and most fully made public, at any rate to the members of the Oireachtas who have such a close connection with it.
I do not think it is desirable that this automatic publication of the terms of a licence should be required by statute. I think the procedure of Parliamentary questions is sufficient to enable Deputies to get any information they may desire concerning any licence that may be granted. I see no objection to the publication of the name of the person to whom a licence is granted and to the general conditions of the licence, but it may be undesirable that all the terms of the licence should be published, as cases may arise where misunderstanding as to the significance of these terms would be created, a misunderstanding which would be obviated if the publication was made in the form of a Parliamentary reply or on some other occasion when an explanatory statement could be made.
I press very strongly that the Minister should accept this amendment. The Minister is very well aware that a good deal of public discontent arose in connection with licences to import free of duty. Far more public discontent has arisen in connection with licences to export cattle under the quota. The Minister assured us here on one occasion in relation to the licences with which he was concerned that the full facts were laid before the public, that there was nothing to explain and everything was simply according to routine. It occurred to me how much better it would have been if, in fact, a full schedule of all licences issued had been published. If a full schedule had been published all along the line and an occasional question raised in respect of isolated licences appearing in that schedule, there might well have been no misunderstanding and no public discontent. I heard the explanation of the Minister for Agriculture of the apparent lack of equity in the distribution of cattle licences, and it occurred to me that if he published a schedule of licences on the lines suggested in this amendment probably it would have been the easiest way of resolving public anxiety as to the equity with which these licences were being distributed.
Now you are going to have licences of a far graver character issued, because they are licences on which, the Minister tells us, will be founded contracts of the utmost possible solemnity, contracts so grave that he would prefer not to have power to terminate them without ad hoc legislation. He is going to enter into these contracts for and on behalf of Saorstát Eireann. Surely Saorstát Eireann ought to know the terms of the contract to which the agent of Saorstát Eireann is going to set his name. Surely it is carrying executive responsibility far beyond even what the Minister for Industry and Commerce will claim—the suggestion that he should be entitled to enter into a contract on behalf of the State without communicating to the Parliament or the public the terms of the contract? The Minister said it may be inconvenient, but it goes without saying that there will be no condition in any of these licences which the Minister would not be quite prepared to stand over in public. If there were such a condition in such a licence it ought not to be there.
I did not say that.
The Minister did not say what?
That there was any condition of the licence likely to be inserted that I would not be prepared to stand over in public.
I did not say that. I said it goes without saying that there will be no condition in the licence which the Minister will not be prepared to stand over in public. If such a condition were there it ought not to be there and it ought to be within the power of Dáil Eireann to draw attention to it and get it deleted. Therefore, what inconvenience or objection can there be in communicating to the world at large the terms of the contract? The Minister may say the other party to the contract might have a sense of delicacy. He had no sense of delicacy when he was asking to have that term inserted. Surely, if a man is going to enter into a contract out of which he expects to derive very material advantage, he ought to be prepared to stand over the terms of the contract. If he is not prepared to stand over them he ought not to enter a contract.
I feel bound to warn the Minister that if he does not accept an amendment along those lines, misunderstanding is going to arise. There will be an air of mystery about these licences. Rumours will start flying around as to their being good, as to the difference between one licence and another, and there will be a lot of unnecessary public anxiety created. The Minister said any information that could be got from the laying of these licences on the Table can be got by way of Parliamentary question. That is not correct, because I often addressed questions to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and he has replied that "it is not in the public interest to furnish the information required by the Deputy." You may raise it if you like on the adjournment, but you can put no obligation on the Minister to answer it. What this amendment sets out to do is to put a statutory obligation on the Minister to publish all information contained in the licence within a month of his granting it. Every person who initiates negotiations with the Minister with a view to getting a licence knows what he can expect—full publicity with regard to the entire transaction—and the Minister in making the contract and in granting the licence knows that every detail will be published and that he will have to stand over it. That is as great a security as you can get into Part III, and from every point of view it is a precaution which I submit should commend itself to the Minister.
I do not anticipate there will, at any time, be any occasion on which it will not be, in effect, an automatic procedure that the conditions attaching to any licence will be made public shortly after the licence is granted. The conditions which would have any bearing upon the value of shares in an undertaking to which a licence was issued will probably have to be made public because there would be an issue of these shares to the public in order to get the necessary capital. It is obvious in certain cases that full publication of all the conditions of the licence may mean that information will be provided to possible competitors of the concern outside the country.
In a reserved industry?
It is possible in relation to some industries that an export trade will be established. Do not discredit that altogether at once.
So long as you make the Irish consumer pay enough, of course, you can dump the stuff anywhere.
There is also the possibility of the terminology of the licence being misunderstood. I have a case in mind where certain conditions were imposed which might give rise to a complete misunderstanding by anybody who did not fully appreciate what was involved. If the terms and conditions were published at the same time as an explanatory memorandum, the effect might be different. I think we could devise some system by which it would be possible to enable persons to inspect the licence on payment of a fee and subject to certain safeguards, if the Deputy would consider that procedure sufficient to secure effective publication from his point of view. Subject to that, however, I think that this automatic tabling of the licence within one month is undesirable in view of the fact that Deputies can get a considerable amount of information concerning any such industry by Parliamentary question, by examination of official reports, and so forth, and information would only be withheld where it was obvious, in the public interests, that it should be withheld.
Mind you, I may probably have to go further to meet the Minister in this than the proposal in the amendment itself, but would the Minister be prepared to say that the terms of any licence issued by him would be available to any member of the Oireachtas for inspection on request?
Yes. I am merely thinking of the necessity for having some safeguard which would prohibit publication—widespread publication— of a particular set of conditions where it was obvious, in the public interests, that there should not be publication. That circumstance might never arise and, in the ordinary course, it would not arise. Usually the only conditions would be what we call the statutory requirements at the present time, such as that nationals should be employed, and so on.
There would be no objection to them.
No, but circumstances might arise that we do not contemplate at the moment. When I talk about the granting of information to competitors, Deputies must remember that there may be more than one licence in a particular industry. In certain industries it may be necessary to get an order to regulate the output of individual concerns and generally to organise the industry to prevent damage being done by unorganised or uneconomic development, in which case it might be unfair to one firm to give information to its respective competitors as to the total output it is permitted to undertake in any one year or as to the minimum output in any one year, or such other things which may be mentioned in the licence granted to it. I should like to have an opportunity of considering the matter further with a view to seeing whether it would be possible to devise some system of publishing ordinarily and merely withholding information when a case for it could obviously be made.
Since the Minister's only opportunity of considering the matter will be between the time the Bill leaves this House and goes to the Seanad, and in order to emphasise how absurd it is that contracts of these particular kinds should be entered into on behalf of this State with any party running an industry here without giving the Parliament the full details of what the licence is, I certainly intend to press this amendment——
Of course, the Parliament has already approved the order and the Bill.
——because in no other way could we impress on the Minister and on the other people concerned how essential we think it, where a person or firm is being put into a monopolistic position in this country, that the full details of the licence should be known to all and particularly to the members of the Oireachtas.
I may take it that amendment No. 12 deals with amendment No. 13.
Yes, amendment No. 13 is negatived.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In page 16 to delete Section 25 (2).
I put the amendment down for the purpose of extracting from the Minister the information which we have already got from him, and that is that the only way in which an order under this Bill can be withdrawn is by an Act of the Oireachtas. I would like to hear from the Minister the position he will be in now with regard to the power to withdraw licences. It seems to me that the Minister has power to revoke licences on the application of the owner, or, when the holder of the licence has been convicted of an offence under Part III of the Act; but under no other circumstances has he the power to revoke licences. Is that so?
That is so. Licences issued can only be revoked—firstly, when the holder applies for revocation, and, secondly, where he has been convicted of an offence under Part III of the Act. If the Deputy's amendment were carried the punishment of the cancellation of the licence because of a refusal to comply with the conditions would not be possible, and the person concerned would only be fined for that offence. I think it is desirable that if the licensee violates the conditions of his licence the power of cancellation of the licence should be there. The Deputy will remember that a similar power was taken in relation to the Cement Act, the original Control of Manufactures Act, the Cereals Act, and so forth. In respect of some of these Acts the word "serious" was put in before "offence." But that did not make any substantial difference at all, because no Government would take the responsibility of cancelling a licence because the holder was guilty of a trifling offence. Nor do I think that the court would convict for a trifling offence. That is only a matter of phraseology. There is very little difference in the section as it would stand with or without the word "serious."
The position we are then in is that once a resolution has been passed and the order confirmed, in order to revoke that order legislation would have to be passed. In addition, if, say, three licences are issued in the case of one reserved commodity, any order to revoke one of these licences, if it were desired to do it for any other reason than that the licence-holder wished it revoked or that he had committed an offence, the position would be that it would be necessary to pass legislation through both Houses of the Oireachtas in order to cancel such licence.
Yes; I do not think the licence can be revoked at all except in accordance with its own terms.
If a licence, having been given, has to be revoked, do I understand that it can only be revoked by the passing of legislation?
Oh, no. It can be revoked if the licensee is convicted by the court of an offence under Part III of the Act.
Yes, but I am asking the Minister if he contemplates conditions under which it may be desirable, for economic or other reasons, to withdraw, say, one of three licences issued for a reserved commodity.
It would require legislation.
Are we in the position that it would require legislation to withdraw one of these licences?
Yes, and probably compensation too.
Would the Minister tell me this; suppose he issues an order making some commodity which I have been manufacturing a reserved commodity, what are my statutory rights about getting a licence?
Or compensation?
An order cannot be made declaring to be a reserved commodity any commodity which has been manufactured to any substantial extent in the Saorstát. That is one ground on which valid objections to the making of the order could be advanced, namely that in fact somebody was manufacturing the commodity at the time. It is not contemplated that this Part of the Bill will operate except in relation to commodities which are not manufactured at all in the Saorstát.
Supposing a man comes along and says: "Admittedly my factory, for the purposes of the Act, is not substantial." Has he a statutory right to get a licence as one of the producers?
Not a statutory right.
Do you not think he should have a statutory right?
I certainly think he has a right to it. I do not want to admit that, because I certainly think no order should be made in respect of any commodity which is being manufactured in the country at the date on which the order is proposed. I do not want any order to be made except the making of the order is essential in order to get the industry established here.
Surely the Minister will see that some provision ought to be made to ensure that through the instrumentality of this Bill we will not be depriving people of their means of livelihood. A situation might arise in which a man was manufacturing in a small way. Supposing it were said: "What you are doing is a mere byproduct, and is not substantial manufacture for the purposes of the Act. We want to set up one big unit to handle the whole output of this particular commodity." That man ought to be entitled either to a first claim for a licence or to compensation. I think it is unjust, and something which the House would not be entitled to do, to wipe a man out of business simply because it is expedient to do so in order to facilitate one industrial unit in carrying on the production of that particular commodity. You have got to keep your eye on justice, particularly when you are dealing with measures of this kind. You can overcome that by saying that he will either have first claim on the licence, or, if the Minister decides to withhold the licence and give it to somebody else, that he will have a claim for compensation for so much of his business as has been put an end to.
An order cannot be made if anybody is manufacturing the commodity.
To any substantial extent. The Minister would be in no difficulty in considering this matter, because he could provide that a man will either be given an offer of the licence, or that, if the Minister decides he cannot offer the man a licence, that he will send him to arbitration for compensation. If the man cannot satisfy the arbitrators that his operations in that particular branch of business were of any value, he will get no compensation.
I asked Deputies opposite to get me a better phrase in relation to "substantial extent." I would not be a party to making an order under this Part of the Bill if the articles were manufactured on any commercial scale whatever in the country except with the agreement of all parties. In those circumstances, I think the order should not be made. I only contempalte an order being made where it is necessary to do so in order to get the industry established.
Supposing a man is making caps for pipes. That is a trivial thing. He might be making them as a side line for some particular little branch of the tin ware industry. You might order a licence to a man to go in for a tin ware factory, which would take in tin caps for pipes and not the rest of the first man's business. You will have to wipe him out of that trivial little industry. You will very rightly say: "You are not substantially in the tin ware industry."
A man would certainly go to the court on that issue.
And get compensation from the court?
He would go to the court and get the order annulled.
He could not, because the court would hold that you were quite entitled to say he was not substantially engaged in the tin plate industry.
I see the Deputy's confusion. An order is made in relation to a commodity—not an industry. If, at any time, we were contemplating bringing tin plate industry under this Part of the Act we would have to make about 500 orders covering each commodity which the industry might turn out.
A case might arise where, in fact, a man could not hope to block an order on the ground that he was substantially engaged in the manufacture of the commodity.
There would have to be an order made reserving pipe caps.
The Minister will not be guilty of the dishonesty of pinning the whole argument to that particular commodity. The Minister can see that a situation might arise in which a man would be quite incapable of satisfying the court that he was substantially engaged, and at the same time could satisfy the court that he was making a revenue from it, and that he was entitled to compensation. It is a question of justice. I think the Minister will agree with me that if he could satisfy the court that he had been making an income out of the manufacture of that commodity, and was going to be prevented from making it, he would in justice be entitled to compensation. I am not asking the Minister to create occasions of compensation. All I am asking him to do is to provide machinery whereby that man could go to the courts, or any other independent arbitrator whom the Minister might name in the statute, and get the compensation to which he is entitled as a result of his loss. If there is no loss there will be no compensation. If there is a loss, the Minister and I both want to see him compensated.
I should much prefer the alternative method of providing that if there were any case where compensation might arise no order should be made.
You have not provided that.
I think I have.
You have only provided that no order shall be made where there is substantial manufacture. That is a very different thing.
I invited Deputies opposite to improve on that phrase if they could. I cannot do so.
Surely, the Minister will agree with me that my duty is merely to draw the Minister's attention to a hiatus in the Bill. He has one of the best staffs of civil servants in the British Isles, and they have a great deal more time to devote to providing appropriate phraseology than I have. My business is to draw the Minister's attention to the defects, and it is his business to ask his experts to remedy them. There should be no objection to giving a man a right to compensation, because if he cannot prove a sufficient loss there will be no compensation, and if he can prove a sufficient loss there is an obligation to provide compensation for him.
I beg to move amendment No. 15:
In page 16, at the end of Section 25, to add a new sub-section as follows:—
Whenever the Minister revokes a reserved commodity manufacture licence he shall within one month of this revocation place upon the Table of each House of the Oireachtas notice of such revocation indicating the reasons for such revocation.
The Minister has just now explained that if, through economic or other reasons, a question arose that it was desirable to revoke a licence given to a person in respect of a reserved commodity, first of all an Act would be required to enable the licence to be revoked, and secondly, that compensation might be necessary. Section 25 gives the Minister power at any time on his own motion to revoke a licence if the holder of such licence has been convicted of an offence under any section contained in Part III of the Act. The amendment which I think in the circumstances should be inserted is that when the Minister revokes such a licence then within one month after the revocation he shall place upon the Table of each House of the Oireachtas notice of such revocation, indicating the reasons for it. The revocation of such a licence is a very serious matter, and I think the Oireachtas should be informed of the revocation and of the reasons for it.
I do not think much would be gained by the adoption of this amendment. There are only two reasons for which a licence can be revoked. One is that an applicant decides to go out of business and to apply for a revocation and the other, that he has been convicted already in a court of an offence under the Act. The only information that could be given would be that the licence had been revoked, either because the applicant applied for its revocation or because he had been convicted of an offence. That is all the information that would be available and it is information which, I think, would be public knowledge in any case.
Will the Minister consider the point I raised in respect of compensation?
That has been fully considered. It is not proposed to make an order in any case in which compensation could possibly arise.
And the Minister will not give any statutory protection to an individual who might take a different view from the Minister?
I am trying to take it out of the power of the Executive Council to make an order of this kind at all where a process of manufacture has already been established here.
That might be very unwise.
Surely the Minister must see how foolish that is, because there might arise a situation in which it would be eminently desirable, if you accept the principle of this Bill at all, that it should operate. Some fellow who could prove he was making 15/- a week, or, may be, 10/- a week, in some little back room, by the manufacture of one little commodity, could hold up a whole big scheme, whereas, if the Minister had power to wipe him out and give him compensation, £50 would give him all he was entitled to. That is the sensible thing to do if you believe in the principle of this Bill at all. There is no objection to putting a man out of business if you are prepared to compensate him, and no rational Executive Council would put an enterprising man out of industry if they were satisfied that he had made a success of it without any protection.
This arose on amendment No. 14.
But the Ceann Comhairle has allowed some little latitude.
He did not allow the discussion to go back to an amendment which the House had already decided upon and which Deputy Mulcahy withdrew.
If the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will look at the amendment he will see that it will not be very difficult to bring my arguments to accurate relevance.
Deputy Dillon will agree that he has got a good deal of latitude. He has made eight speeches to my counting on this.
On what?
On this dispute with the Minister.
If the Chair desires to describe them as speeches—but I was trying to get information on a very important point.
The Chair is not trying to do anything whatever but to keep the Deputy right. We have already decided on amendment No. 14. Deputy Mulcahy withdrew it, and Deputy Dillon made six or seven speeches after.
I have nothing more to add.
Amendment No. 15 negatived.
Fifth Stage.
To-morrow.
Are you going to meet next week?
I think so.
