Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 Dec 1937

Vol. 69 No. 17

Agricultural Produce (Fresh Meat) (Amendment) Bill, 1937—Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Principal Act and without prejudice to the powers of refusing applications for registration of premises conferred on him by the Principal Act, the Minister may in his absolute discretion refuse an application for registration of any premises.

Mr. Bennett

I move the following amendment:—

In Section 2, sub-section (1), line 22, to delete the word "absolute" and after the word "premises", line 23, to add the words—"subject to the right of the applicant for a licence to apply to the Circuit Court for the issue of licence notwithstanding such refusal on the grounds that all the statutory requirements for the issue of a licence have been fulfilled."

I tabled this amendment to Section 2 here. Section 2 says:

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Principal Act and without prejudice to the powers of refusing applications for registration of premises conferred on him by the Principal Act, the Minister may in his absolute discretion refuse an application for registration of any premises.

I have moved an amendment to delete the word "absolute" and to add the words

"subject to the right of the applicant for a licence to apply to the Circuit Court for the issue of licence notwithstanding such refusal on the ground that all the statutory requirements for the issue of a licence have been fulfilled."

Perhaps the Minister will tell us later on what set of circumstances, since the original Act came into operation six or seven years ago, arose to make it necessary for the Minister to seek the extra powers he wants in Section 2. That is the first thing that strikes me. In the original Act we had two pages of restrictions, or, at least, of regulations on which an applicant for registration had to satisfy the Minister before he got a licence. I do not want to weary the House by enumerating what they are, but they are sufficiently strict and cover almost all possible circumstances in connection with premises and the conduct of a person's business, so that almost one could envisage that when the original Bill left the House it was as watertight as a Bill could be made and that nobody could get on the registration list unless he was absolutely above-board and his premises everything that could be desired.

The Minister comes along now with this particular section—Section 2— which goes on to read as follows:—

(2) Where the Minister in exercise of the power conferred on him by this section, refuses an application for registration, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Principal Act shall not apply.

Now, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Principal Act were the only two sub-sections that gave an applicant for registration any right at all. They provided the only possible safeguard he had. Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Principal Act says:

Whenever an application is made under this section for the registration of any premises, the Minister shall cause such premises to be inspected by an inspector.

Sub-section (3) of the same section goes on to say:

Before refusing an application for the registration of any premises under this Part of this Act, the Minister shall send by post to the applicant at his address as stated in the application one fortnight's notice of the Minister's intention to refuse such application and of the reason of such refusal, and shall consider any representations made by the applicant before the expiration of such notice.

The Minister now asks the House not only to give him absolute discretion in the refusal of any licences, without any excuse, but to prevent the operation of those two particular sub-sections to which I have drawn his attention. If this section here is passed in its present terms, it is practically giving, if the Minister wishes, a vested interest to those who already hold licences because the Minister can refuse to give anybody else a licence and need not give any grounds for his refusal, or any case stated. That is as I see it. I think the House should not agree to pass this particular section without at least some statement as to the causes that led up to his seeking these powers. Did anything occur during the operation of the Act in the last few years which made the registration of premises so difficult that the Minister had to seek these extra powers?

In connection with very many of the Bills that went through this House at various times I have always objected to the principle of giving absolute discretion to anybody, outside of regulations, and I have to offer the same objections in connection with this particular section. It does not seem to me that any elaborate explanation—at least on the introduction of the Bill— was given as to why we should depart from the provisions of the section in the original Act, which gave the Minister what would appear to any ordinary Deputy to be sufficient powers in that respect.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

It may be quite true that Deputy Bennett has always objected to this power of discretion being given to the Minister in Acts of this kind, but in all those Produce Acts that have been passed, both by the last Government and this Government, the same discretion rests with the Minister, I think, in every case. Under the Dairy Produce Act, for instance, passed as far back as 1924, the Minister had discretion to refuse a licence to any person or society to carry on the business of a creamery.

Under the original Act introduced by my predecessor the position was somewhat different. At that time the business of exporting fresh pork, which was the principal business to be dealt with then, was being carried on by a great number of people all over the country and some of them were acting in a very improper way so far as cleanliness and proper trading were concerned. The Act was brought in to deal with them and to see that only the very best pork should be permitted to leave the country so that our pork exported would get a good name. As I say, there were quite a number of people all over the country engaged in the business at that time, and the Act provided for rather stiff fees being paid, both fees on registration and minimum fees half-yearly. In that way it was hoped actually to put a great number of the people who were not desirable people out of the business entirely, and indeed the Act had that effect.

As I say, there was a different position then. Therefore, the Minister at that time did not ask for complete discretion for the granting of new licences. But, I think, in every other Produce Act of that kind which was passed that discretion has been claimed by the Minister. In an Act passed dealing with the export of potatoes that discreation was also given to the Minister. That Bill was passed, I think, in 1931, and discretion was given to refuse to grant a licence to a new exporter. In other Acts passed within the last four or five years the same discretion has been given; in the case of the Cereals Act, for instance, for the granting of a licence for a maize mill; in the case of the Bacon Act, which was passed not so long ago, in connection with a licence for a new bacon factory. By putting in this we are only bringing the Bill into line with all Bills of that type by giving the Minister an absolute discretion.

I do not think any Deputy on the opposite benches can accuse either my predecessor or myself of having exercised that discretion under any of these Acts in an unjust way, because we know what is wanted so far as these trades are concerned. We have inspectors and officials who are out to see that the trade in fresh meat, in potatoes, bacon, and so on, is carried on under the best possible circumstances. I think Deputies will admit that an inspector of my Department is in a very much better position to decide whether it would be advisable to grant a licence than a Circuit Court judge. I do not see what a Circuit Court judge would know about it at all. He is not a suitable person for this particular job. He would have to decide, I suppose, somehow or other on the law. We would have to give him some rules of law to go by. If the amendment were inserted all the Circuit Court judge would be asked to decide would be whether a particular applicant had complied with the law or not. It is possible that an applicant might comply with the law who would not be at all a desirable applicant from the point of view of building up a proper trade in fresh meat.

On the Second Reading I said that we were anxious to get a good name for our mutton and pork in particular. We do not want any such thing as trade rivalry entering into it—one man setting up, out of jealousy or trade rivalry or anything else, against another and trying to cut one another out of the trade instead of carrying on the business in the best possible way. Generally speaking, I think that this discretion should be given to the Minister as it has been given in all the other Acts. As I say, I do not think any Deputy will be able to point to any instance where the power has been abused under any of these Acts either by my predecessor or myself.

Mr. Bennett

What the Minister says about the discretionary clause in most of the Acts is, I believe, right, but that does not affect the force of my argument that the Bill would not suffer very much by the absence of this power. The Minister said that it was left out of the original Act and that he is only trying to bring this into conformity with the rest of the legislation. He has not said that the absence of this discretionary power has caused any considerable inconvenience to the Minister or anybody else. Everything seems to have gone on very well and we have not had any reasons advanced why it is necessary to give these absolute powers. Apparently, it is thought necessary not only to give these absolute powers but to take away some of the privileges given to an applicant for registration.

Dr. Ryan

They would be consequential.

Mr. Bennett

The Minister said that inspectors were the best people to judge these matters. They might possibly be better judges of many things than a Circuit Court judge as he can only go by the regulations and the law; but that would be some safeguard anyhow. The Minister spoke of inspectors being better judges than most people. But he has taken away the power of inspection. Section 8 (2) of the original Act says: "Whenever an application is made under this section for the registration of any premises, the Minister shall cause such premises to be inspected by an inspector." He is now taking that away, because Section 2 (2) of this Bill says: "Where the Minister, in exercise of the power conferred on him by this section, refuses an application for registration, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Principal Act shall not apply in respect of such application," so that the premises need not be inspected even by an inspector. The Minister can refuse an applicant a licence without even having the premises inspected. He is also taking away the privileges given under the original Act to an applicant for registration. Under that Act the Minister was required to give the applicant a fortnight's notice of his intention to refuse the application and to state the reasons, etc.

I have never said that the present Minister or his predecessor used their discretionary powers in any way that they should not have used them, and I do not suggest it now. I do say that the Minister should not ask for absolute power and in addition take away the privileges that an applicant for registration got under the original Act which the Minister has made no case for eliminating now. The House should not be asked to pass this particular section. As I said, it will leave it open to any Minister to refuse a licence without any grounds being stated. In other words, if any future Minister wishes he can give a vested interest to people who already held a licence so that there can be no opposition to them. I do not say that that will happen but it could happen under this section. There is not even the right of inspection to operate against it. The Minister has taken away the privileges the applicant had that the premises should be inspected and that he should be given a fortnight's notice of the refusal of his licence.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again to-morrow.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Friday, December 17th, at 10.30 a.m.