I want to make a few observations generally on the principle embodied in this Bill, which principle has been attacked in two amendments, one yesterday and one to-day. My objection to the Bill as it stands is to the giving of a discretion to the Minister which he himself admits is wrong in principle; but in any remarks that I have to make in attacking that aspect of the Bill I wish it to be clearly understood by the Minister and by the House that I do not for one moment suggest that the Minister, or any successor of his, would invoke the aid of Section 2 for the purpose of dealing unjustly or unfairly with any application for a licence that might come to his Department. This is one of the first measures which we are about to pass since the new Constitution came into force, and, as a lawyer, and a citizen of this State, I will bow to no one in the respect I will pay to that Constitution and the words contained therein, but I submit that the principle embodied in Section 2 is in direct conflict, if not with the letter, at all events, with the spirit of the Constitution.
If the House will pardon me for a moment, I shall come back to the relevant Articles of the Constitution in support of that argument, but before I reach that stage, there are a number of reasons, apart from that which I have just stated, why I suggest this Bill should not be allowed to go on to the statute book in its present form. It will, I think, be admitted by everyone, as it is admitted by the Minister, that it is wrong in principle to grant to a Minister, or to any official of this State, an absolute discretion to refuse or to grant a licence similar in character to this. There have been, during the past few years, a number of Acts put into operation in connection with agricultural produce. There have been statutes passed in connection with eggs, in connection with butter and in connection with creameries, and now this Bill deals with fresh meat. In none of those statutes can I find this absolute discretion given to a Minister who is the Minister in charge of the Department dealing with their administration. There is, however, in another similar Act an absolute discretion given to the Minister. That is the Act which deals with milling licences. We have listened to a great deal of discussion here on the result of the operation of these licences, and the limitation of the number of mills, and I think we must come to the conclusion, as a result of those discussions, that enormous profits have been made by the millers through the granting of those licences. That is the only statute I could find, in the short time at my disposal for a search, in which an absolute discretion is given to the Minister to refuse or to grant a licence.
I say that it is bad in principle that the Minister should have this discretion. He admits it himself, and I say that he should come to this House and convince it with arguments that could not possibly be refuted on the grounds of expediency and on every other ground, in order to get the members of this House to accept the position that he should have this absolute discretion, he at the time admitting that it is wrong in principle. I am a great believer in the institution of Parliamentary representation. Unfortunately, if we cast our eyes around the map of Europe, or the map of the world, we find that the Parliamentary institutions of the different countries are crumbling into dust. We can flatter ourselves that in so far as we have a Parliamentary institution, it is beloved and cherished by the people, and I hope it always will be. But there is always the thin end of the wedge; there is always the little crack that can be made in the ramparts, and I suggest that by giving the Minister for Agriculture the right to do what he seeks in this Bill, you are driving the first blow into the ramparts and walls of Parliamentary institutions and creating a dangerous and an alarming experiment. The Minister stated on the Committee Stage that the reason why Section 2 is necessary was, in the first place, to obviate the expense of sending inspectors to inspect premises proposed to be licenses. I may be wrong in that, but I gather that that was the tenour of the Minister's remarks, and that it was deemed desirable to have a certain amount of monopoly with regard to slaughterhouses and the resultant licensing of exports therefrom. If that is so. I cannot see that that is an adequate ground for introducing this section, especially having regard to the fact that the Minister stated that since the original Act was passed in 1930 he had on numerous occasions, in virtue of his office, carried out the administration of that Act as if this section were embodied in it, and had the meaning purporting to be given to it at the present time. If the Minister has acted on the assumption that he had the absolute right of veto on licences of this kind, and had not been challenged on it, or if he has unfairly operated that end of the Act, why the necessity to put in this dangerous section here?
I have only a few other observations to make before I refer Deputies to some of the relative Articles of the Constitution. There is no question whatever, but this section is designed in such a way that it will tend to create a monopoly. We have only to look to a great country like the United States of America for proof of the life and death struggle that is going on there in order to abolish the system of monopolies and trusts that was created there. Of course we are not as big or as rich as that country, and we do not deal in millions as they do in America, at the same time, monopolies, even in a small way, are dangerous when introduced.
I suggest to Deputies that, while the Constitution has been enacted by the people, we stand between the people and the Executive, in order to see that the people get the rights that have been given to them, and to see that they are not lightly taken away. The Minister in charge of this Bill is, I might say, an expert on the Constitution, because I read recently that he delivered a lecture on the subject in his constituency. Therefore, he will perhaps appreciate the observations I wish to make on the subject. I ask the Minister to consider Article 45 of the Constitution. Is he of opinion that if he insists upon this Bill passing with this section in it, that he is not breaking his trust to the people who are alleged to have enacted the Constitution? Article 45 reads:—
The principles of social policy set forth in this Article are intended for the general guidance of the Oireachtas. The application of those principles in the making of laws shall be the care of the Oireachtas exclusively, and shall not be cognisable by any Court under any of the provisions of this Constitution.
It is our exclusive care, both Ministers and Deputies, to see that the principles of social policy set forth in the Article are carried into effect. According to paragraph iii of the Article the objects are:—
iii. That, especially, the operation of free competition shall not be allowed so to develop as to result in the concentration of the ownership or control of essential commodities in a few individuals to the common detriment.
The Minister has admitted that the result of this section, when carried to its logical conclusion, will be to deprive certain individuals of the right of free competition, and to place the control of commodities, that is to say, the export of fresh beef, in the hands of a few. I suggest that that is to the detriment of the citizens of this State. Has the Minister or the Government considered whether the delegation of that absolute right to the Minister in regard to the licensing of exports is a detriment to the citizens of the State? Have they considered whether that is not a breach of faith under the Constitution they piloted through this House? It is not my intention to suggest that the Minister would in any way act unfairly. I am not so much really concerned with this particular Bill as with the principle being introduced into Parliamentary institutions. I say that it will affect the future of Parliamentary government. I ask the Minister to consider the matter in that light. As this is one of the first Bills to be passed under and by virtue of the new Constitution is it not breaking faith with the people who passed that Constitution to have this section in the Bill?
