There is an amendment—No. 1—to Section 4. This amendment governs amendments Nos. 6. 10, 11 and 13. They all aim at increasing the membership of the board from three to seven.
Pigs and Bacon (Amendment) Bill, 1939—Committee Stage.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 1:—
To delete sub-section (3) and substitute the following sub-section:—
(3) The commission shall consist of seven members, namely, the chairman of the commission (in this Act referred to as the chairman) and six other members (in this Act referred to as the ordinary members).
I consider that this is a very important amendment——
Hear, hear!
——having relation to the whole prospects of the future of the Bill, because I feel that there will be deep-seated suspicion and objection to the handing over of the very extreme powers that are proposed to be given to a commission of three men outside of the industry and without having any regard to the interests of those who are particularly concerned. According to the wording of this amendment, we are only asking for an extension of that scope in order to give effect to the proposal that I am making in amendment No. 10, with regard to the constitution of this commission. If the Bill passes in its present form, and if all these powers are to be vested in the hands of this commission, to be appointed by the Minister himself, I see no possibility of giving a voice in the direction of these matters to the people who are really concerned with this particular industry, and the Bill, in its present form, certainly will not tend to create or encourage that confidence which is sought by the Bill and which we should all like to see.
The meddling that has gone on with regard to the pig and bacon industry during the past five years has not been a phenomenal success, and while we had two boards set up, one representing the pig producing end of the industry and the other representing the bacon end of the industry, with one common chairman, neither of them has been the success that we wished for. If one side got away with more than the other, or with more than might have been considered right, or if one side got away with more, perhaps, at the expense of the other side, that might not be regarded as a compliment to the chairman or a compliment to his competence, but I do not think it is a fitting case to make that, because of that failure, or alleged failure, or because of the success of one side as against the other, the Minister should be entitled to go to the extreme length of cutting out the people who are really interested in this particular industry and preventing them from having any voice in its control. We heard the Minister say that it was his idea that this commission should carry on the functions of the two boards and get all the information that they could get to enable them to try to produce a scheme—the best possible scheme they could produce—with regard to the control of bacon production, marketing and everything else, that would give us the greatest possible benefit. In other words, the proposal was that they should learn sufficient to go back and teach their teachers in the course of a few years, but that suggestion is being made at a time when the people who really matter with regard to this industry are being excluded from having a voice or any participation in the control of that industry. We have heard a lot from the Government Party about parish committees, vocational councils, the extension of local authorities of all kinds, and so on, but this proposal seems to be a negation of all that has been preached by the Government in that regard. If the principle that I suggest in amendment No. 1 is accepted, it will make it possible for amendment No. 10 to be moved, and that, in my opinion, would be as near as I can visualise for a vocational committee dealing with a particular industry such as pig production and bacon curing; but if my amendment is to be resisted and eventually lost, and if the Minister insists upon hand-picking three people of his own choice, I think he can scarcely blame the pig producers, bacon curers and merchants in this country for not having confidence in this commission, and I think it will only tend to deepen the suspicion that things will not be well with regard to the pig and bacon industry in this country as a whole.
As I stated on the Second Reading of the Bill, this is a Bill of very great importance to all sections of the community. The production of pigs and the curing of bacon are things that we should excel at, and I suggest that we ought to be able to excel in this industry under the ægis of this Bill, and that we ought to be able to extend that industry so as to be able to supply all our requirements at home as well as to supply the export trade, and give a fair return to the producer and, incidentally, to the consumer, and particularly the home consumer, who has been subsidising the industry at a very heavy cost and who, evidently, is going to be called upon again for further subsidies. This commission is going to be invested with the powers of a tax-gatherer. It is going to be enabled to call upon the consumers of bacon in this country to pay whatever levies may be necessary to provide the export bounties that may be required. That is a serious responsibility, and I suggest that the Minister ought not to go one step further in the direction that many people think the Government are heading towards, and that is towards sheer dictatorship and a wiping out of all the normal rights and privileges of democratic institutions. We have had experience already in this House of what the lack of control over big corporations, connected with lighting, sugar, and so on, lead to, and we do not want the pig and bacon industry to be taken over and controlled by three people of the Minister's own choosing or of his Department's choosing. We think that the representation ought to be widened to the extent that is called for in the amendment, so as to enable all the interests concerned to be represented.
This amendment appears to be an entirely crazy amendment. For four years now, we have sought in this House to get rid of a gang of plunderers and brigands in this country and we have got rid of them. No sooner do we reach this first amendment than we have the Labour Party setting out to put the boys back again. What did the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Boards consist of? A few curers, two representatives of the producers and sundry other persons. What actually happened? The board was run by the curers for the curers. It ended up as a board of curers for curers by curers. Here is Deputy Keyes' proposal. You cannot understand his amendment unless it is read in connection with amendment No. 10. Instead of the proposed commission, we should have a board consisting of two persons who are licensed bacon curers—the same old tulips turning up again!—"two persons having practical experience of pig raising, to represent pig producers; one person having practical experience of the retail distribution of bacon, to represent distributors of bacon; and one person having practical experience of employment in the bacon curing business, to represent workers employed in the business of bacon curing." There will be two persons on the board, who made their fortunes during the last four years as bacon curers. It is bacon curers and those who work in the bacon factories who have done very well—the curers by robbing the public, and the workers, by trade union representation, having secured substantial increases in wages.
What are their wages?
I do not know what they are at the present moment, but they are substantial.
Are they too high?
I am not saying they are too high. I am saying that two people did well out of this business, the bacon curers and those——
And the investors in the factories.
And the investors, as I have good reason to know. I made my living in that way, by having such money invested. I begged this House to put an end to the scandal which enabled me to make that substantial amount. I warned this House that I was going to make it and I said it was a public scandal that I should be allowed to make it; and eventually I succeeded after many battles in getting the scandal which permitted it removed. This amendment by Deputy Keyes is going to put me right back again in the old position to make another substantial sum at the expense of the consumers.
Does the Deputy suggest that no representation on the board should be given to the bacon curers?
I suggest they should have no representation on a board designed to control the pig industry.
Nor the pig producers?
We were salted for four years as a result of putting up a board which was dominated by curers. I would not take that risk again. The people were robbed as a result of that and they will be robbed again if this amendment is passed. What made the Labour Party suggest that the curers should be reinstated as the lords dictators of the bacon and pig industry of this country? Why is the Labour Party so solicitous, all of a sudden, for the interests of the bacon curers—the poor innocent bacon curers who may be penalised?
Would I have met with approval in having had them excluded? The position is different. Why exclude the pig producers?
Do we not represent the pig producers? Is not that what we are here for in Dáil Eireann? Who else represents them? Did not the electors give their votes and put Deputy Keyes and me here for that? Did not the Deputy hear the Minister undertake to bring all the activities of this commission before Dáil Eireann, so that we, speaking on behalf of the pig producers on the one hand and the consumers on the other hand will be able to make the same commission answerable for all they do? Is it not we that control this industry, if control there is?
Is the Deputy quite satisfied that it is going to be controlled by us?
Absolutely. This Bill will not pass this House if that is not done.
That is better still.
I understand we have sufficient support from the Government Party to ensure that this Bill will not be passed in this House if that commission is not made answerable to the Minister for Agriculture. The Minister has given us this assurance here, that he will introduce an amendment to that effect; and I believe that there is an amendment here which is designed to give effect to that—though I believe, from my perusal of the Bill, inasmuch as certain officers are removable at the Minister's pleasure, that in itself gives us the right to raise in Dáil Eireann any matter relating to the activities of the commission. I do not know if the Minister himself agrees with that?
I do not know the particular point, but certainly this legislation, included with the old legislation, gives all powers to bring the activities of the commission before Dáil Éireann.
There is in the Bill as amended provision enabling Deputies, either by way of discussion on the Bacon Commission's report, or by direct question, to raise matters in Dáil Éireann?
I do not know if there is provision for raising matters by direct question.
I am going to have pressed at a later stage either representation or——
Is the Deputy's confidence in the commission slightly shaken?
Not in the least. I am going to press to have the report of the commission submitted and discussed in this House, or, alternatively, the right of any Deputy to raise questions in this House relating to the commission's operations. If the Deputy knows that is going to be done, will he not come and join with me in securing for us, the elected representatives of the producer and the consumer, the right to defend their interests?
We are doing that.
What you are doing by this amendment is handing back this whole industry into the hands of the curers.
Not at all.
You are giving them the power to sit behind closed doors, presided over by a curer, and control the situation. We have had two boards in existence with representatives of the pig producers—so called representatives during the last four years. What did they do for the producers? Had they the gumption to disagree with the curers? If you look into the records, you will find that the decisions taken by that board were taken with the consent of the two persons on that board supposed to represent the producers. There is only one place where the interests of the pig producers and the bacon consumers are capable of being effectively protected and that is on the public floor of Dáil Éireann. That is where they ought to be protected. There is only one institution in this State capable of protecting the people against the operations of an industry which is within the control of Denny, and that institution is the Parliament of the people. There is no combination in this country that will have behind it force sufficient to fight vested interests like the bacon curers, led by Henry Denny, who is at the head of an international bacon combine. There is no corporation or body which will have enough strength to fight that, other than the Parliament. I urge on this House most strongly to reject this amendment and to insist that the only authority in this country powerful enough to control these ruthless men will be enabled to deal with them if and when the situation arises, so that our people will no longer be exploited by international combines whose only concern is to screw out of the people the last drop of blood that the Parliament will allow them the power to squeeze.
I am against this amendment, too, as my idea of this Bill (as I explained on the Second Reading) is that we should set up a commission composed of people not directly concerned in curing or producing but entirely as it were a commission to carry on the business and at the same time investigate the whole industry and make a report on what would be the best form of permanent organisation. As I said before, certain Deputies expressed the view here on the Second Reading, that all these functions that the boards have at the moment could quite well be carried on by the Minister and the Department. It is possible that this commission might report that that is their opinion, after some experience; and it is possible, on the other hand, that they may report that in their opinion a board should be set up composed as Deputy Keyes has outlined or as outlined by the Prices Commission or, perhaps, by the Agricultural Commission. However, as an interim arrangement, I am anxious to have a commission of the kind contemplated in this Bill, to carry on these functions and eventually make a report.
Would the Minister give the House any information as to the type of persons likely to constitute this commission, the qualifications they are likely to have, and whether there is going to be representation on that commission for those engaged in the production of bacon for the standpoint of the pig producers and the standpoint of those engaged in the curing of bacon as an industry. Would the Minister take the House into his confidence on that aspect of the matter?
I stated here before that it was necessary to set up an export committee in view of the regulations brought in by the British Government for the import of bacon into Great Britain. That committee is composed, at the moment, of the chairman of the Pigs and Bacon board and of two civil servants, one of whom was in charge of the administrative end of all these Acts dealing with pigs, and the other in charge of technical questions that might arise in bacon factories and so on—in other words, a veterinary surgeon. It is my intention to have the same people looking after export and on this commission. They would be changed, of course, from time to time.
How long is it intended that the commission should function pending the establishment of some permanent form of control?
I think that within two years they should be able to give a full report.
I want to revert to the very unfair criticism by Deputy Dillon of my amendment. He has not probably read the amendments through, but if he has, I must say that it was deliberately unfair, because the implication conveyed by his criticism was that this amendment wanted to take away control from this House and to vest all authority in this committee of seven which I propose, constituted of people representing the various branches of the bacon industry. In amendment No. 33, I have set down that:
"Every regulation made by the commission under this section shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling such resolution is passed by either House of the Oireachtas within the next subsequent 21 days on which that House has sat after such regulation is laid before it, such regulation should be annulled."...
That was deliberately put in to retain the control of this House whatever the constitution of the commission is going to be. I want it to be finally answerable to the House, and I am not half as confident as Deputy Dillon seems to be that the Minister has gone far enough to assure us that the House is going to have that control, whether over a triumvirate or over seven people.
I still suggest that the time has not come when we can afford completely to divorce from the commission the people who have built up the industry of pig rearing and bacon producing because of any allegations that Deputy Dillon may make, that some of these people have got inordinate profits, as we are told, in the past few years. There were two separate boards working and it is proposed now to have a fusion. I suggest that no case has been made for wiping out from representation on that joint board the three interests concerned, and I believe that if we are going to have what I spoke of earlier, any confidence in the measure and any revival amongst bacon producers, whose confidence has been badly shattered by the constant repetition in this House that they are being robbed, right, left and centre, these interests should have representation. Confidence is what is going to increase the pig population, which is the first essential of this legislation, the first seed of the industry, and I suggest that the best means of getting that confidence is by a widely-drawn governing committee with representation for the people who produce the pigs, selected by the Minister on their nomination, and, similarly, for the bacon curers and the workers in the industry, who surely ought to know something about it and ought to be competent to advise the Minister just as much as three people whom he would select from outside the industry, and who, he hopes, will learn sufficient in three years to come back and educate him. I think the amendment is very reasonable and ought to be accepted.
I want to make this quite clear, that while I hope and pray this amendment will not be carried, because I think it would be disastrous, I deplore, as I said on Second Reading, the decision to appoint the chairman the Minister has in mind. The Minister has gravely prejudiced the whole Bill by that decision because the gentleman in question is no more competent to fill the position of chairman of the board than Lanna Machree's dog—less, in fact, because Lanna Machree's dog never made a ghastly failure of such a position, while the gentleman whom the Minister proposes to put at the head of the board has made a ghastly failure of a similar position he has held for the last four years.
The appointment of the chairman is provided for in Section 5.
The matter has been raised by Deputy Keyes suggesting that a board constituted according to the Minister's prognostication is very much less attractive than the board he suggests. I should have no difficulty in differing from him categorically, but for the fact that the Minister informs us of the identity of the chairman and I confess at once that the Minister exposes his flank there, because the chairman proposed is a manifestly incompetent person. All I can hope is that the other two members of the commission will habitually override the chairman. Nevertheless, when he is awake to the fact that the chairman is bound to carry certain influence and that individual representations on behalf of interested parties will largely fall to be considered by the chairman who, if he is an incompetent person, will not give those representations the kind of consideration they ought to get, I again urge on the Minister in that connection that if this bacon commission is to be allowed to appear as effective as it ought to appear, he should take the opportunity of availing of this gentleman's services in some other capacity, and put in as chairman of the commission some individual who will command the support of all Parties. Such a person is not difficult to get. There are dozens of men in this State——
The Deputy will not repeat this on Section 5 or amendment No. 4?
I do not know whether I will or not.
It should not be done.
The matter was raised by Deputy Keyes, and I do not want to let it pass as suggesting that I in any way assented to the appointment of this gentleman as chairman of the board, because I do not.
Question put: "That the words pro posed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 90; Níl, 7.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George C.
- Benson, Ernest E.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brasier, Brooke.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Brennan, Martin.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Francis.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moran, Michael.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Munnelly, John.
- Nally, Martin.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Hughes, James.
- Keating, John.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- O'Donovan, Timothy J.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, John.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Jeremiah.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Burke, Thomas.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Hickey, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Norton, William.
- Pattison, James P.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Smith and S. Brady; Níl: Deputies Keyes and Hickey.
Question declared carried.
Amendment accordingly defeated.
Section 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 5.
(1) The Minister shall before the transfer date and thereafter as occasion requires nominate a person to be the chairman.
(2) The chairman shall hold office during the pleasure of the Minister.
(3) Whenever the chairman is through ill-health or other sufficient cause temporarily incapacitated from performing the duties of his office, the Minister shall nominate a person (being one of the ordinary members) to perform during such incapacity the duties of the chairman and the person so appointed shall during such incapacity have all the powers of the chairman and be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be the chairman, and shall also be deemed during such incapacity not to be an ordinary member.
(4) There shall be paid by the commission to any person nominated under the immediately preceding sub-section such remuneration and such allowances for expenses as the Minister may appoint.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are out of order.
I must say that I got a note from you, Sir.
I am prepared to hear the Deputy if he has any representations to make.
Mr. Brennan
This particular amendment of mine, proposing to add a new section before Section 5, has been ruled out of order by the Chair. The reasons given by the Chair for so ruling are not satisfactory to me, at least. It may be my fault. The Chair has ruled that: "The subject matter of this amendment would, I think, have been more properly dealt with on Second Reading. Amendments on Committee Stage must be related more specifically to the sections of the Bill". With regard to the first portion of that, as a matter of fact the subject matter was dealt with on Second Reading. I, and other speakers, raised the question as to whether this Bill was, in fact, going to give us that fillip of production which we thought it was necessary that we should have. The matter, as I have said, was raised by myself and other members. This Bill, and the measure which it supersedes, proposes to deal with the regulation of pigs and bacon, and we feel that it is necessary that there should be a background to all that. Perhaps the Chair thinks that that is met by a kind of pious resolution, by a kind of platitude of some sort or another. We have a kind of background, if you like, in such documents as the Constitution. We feel that for the people in charge of the Pigs Bill there ought to be some background which we can always fall back upon, and say that the background of the Bill was an endeavour, an attempt, to get a better production of pigs. That is my first reason for trying to get this amendment into the Bill.
With regard to the second point, that amendments on Committee Stage must be related more specifically to sections of the Bill, I submit that this amendment is in very close relation to Section 4, and the amendment, if in order, would follow that section. My aim in putting it down was to show what the duties, aims and objects of the commission, as set out in Section 4, ought to be. That was the purpose I had in putting down the amendment, and I do not think, Sir, that your ruling is satisfactory on the matter.
The functions of the commission were laid down in the Bill as read a Second Time. On the Second Stage of a Bill, Deputies may debate not only what is in the Bill but what they would desire to see in the Bill. Having passed the Second Stage, discussion is confined within the four walls of the Bill. As far as the main principles go, it is obvious that the functions of this commission are an essential element of the Bill. On the Second Stage, the points to which the Deputy referred were debated. In fact, amendment No. 2 might be taken as a précis of say columns 271 onwards of that discussion. These things are advocated at length. Such a measure as the Constitution would naturally be largely of a declaratory character. This is not a declaratory Bill. It is a business Bill, designed for the management of a certain industry. Amendment No. 2 seems to me to be merely declaratory, or it might be as the Deputy said, considered as a pious aspiration. In Committee, amendments must be precise and related to particular sections. They must try to achieve their purpose by amending those sections in so far as that is permissible within the main principles of the Bill. Being declaratory and not necessary if those functions of the commission are already in the Bill, and being outside the scope of it if they are not, I have ruled amendments Nos. 2 and 3 out of order.
Mr. Brennan rose.
I have given a ruling and it cannot be further discussed. The Deputy got full opportunity to put his point of view. Amendment No. 4.
Mr. Brennan
I move amendment No. 4:—
Before sub-section (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) The person nominated by the Minister to be the chairman of the commission shall be a person recommended to him by the Civil Service Commissioners on the advice of a selection committee constituted from among the personnel of the commission or bodies which furnished the following reports, namely, the Report of the Tariff Commission on Bacon, Hams and other Pig Products (Report No. 14), 1932; the Report of the Pig Industries Tribunal, 1933; the Report of the Prices Commission on the Prices charged for Bacon including Hams and Gammons, 1938.
The reason for this amendment is obvious. We had under the last Pigs and Bacon Board a chairman who apparently was selected by the Minister himself and who has not given satisfaction. It was found by an independent tribunal, the Prices Commission, that certain things happened. We felt, and the country feels, that it was the business of that chairman, as the representative of the Minister, and, if you like, of this House, to report back to the Minister and through him to this House on the happenings that were taking place. We do not want a repetition of that under this measure.
The Minister informed us to-day that the person who acted as chairman in the past is going to be the chairman of this new commission. I will read for the Minister some remarks of his own which he made on the Pigs and Bacon Bill of 1934 when it was in Committee. I am reading from column 149. The Minister said:—
"Naturally to a position like this a person is not appointed for life. He may not be a success and have to be removed in a few years."
That was the Minister's opinion at that time of the person who might be appointed chairman of the Pigs and Bacon Board. Is the Minister prepared to stand up now and say that that gentleman was a success in that position? I do not know the gentleman at all. I do not know who he is, and I do not know what his qualifications for the job are, but I do know that he certainly did not make a success of his job under the old measure. The Minister comes along now and tells us that he is going to put him back into that job, into the same position, and that he will have the same power and authority as he had in the past. I am proposing in this amendment that a selection board be set up of persons, as set out in the amendment, who have special knowledge in this regard. If the Minister agrees to my amendment this much will be achieved: that you will be establishing confidence in the minds of the producers of the country.
If the Minister persists in making the appointment which he has suggested to the House that he was about to make, it is certain that he cannot establish confidence in the commission. We cannot have a prosperous industry of any kind without confidence. People cannot go heartily into an industry unless they are confident that they are going to get a fair deal. We cannot have an increase in pig production in this country without establishing confidence. That certainly is essential. If we are going to establish confidence in the commission we must have a chairman selected by persons who have some knowledge of the pig industry. I do not mind in what way or where or how the Minister gets this selection committee. The Minister ought to take some steps to establish that confidence which is necessary. Unless he does something of the nature I have indicated in this amendment he will not have the confidence of the public in the commission.
I do not admit at all that the chairman of these two boards has been unsatisfactory. As I have already said, these two boards had to carry out the Acts under which the boards were established. These Acts were passed by the Oireachtas. The chairman had certain functions outside the boards. One thing that he was anxious to do was to get information from the manufacturers on the matter of costings, so that something could be done even from the very beginning to find out what was the ordinary margin that the curers should get for the curing of bacon. This was quite necessary in order to carry out the Acts properly. That was there for that purpose and it was tried. It took a long time before it was eventually found that the Acts were defective and that this information could not be got from the curers in the way that we would like to get it. In this Bill we are putting in a clause to make it perfectly clear that all the facts in relation to the cost of the manufacture of bacon can be got from the manufacturers. I hope the commission will then be in a position to say what is a fair margin for the curers, and then give a fair return to the producer. I go further than that. I am quite satisfied that the chairman of these two boards did his duty well.
But even if I were not so satisfied I think it would be very difficult for three new men to go in there and take over the working of a new board or commission to carry on from the beginning. It would be necessary to have some sort of a liaison or carry-over from one of these boards to the commission.
Who is the secretary?
There were two secretaries.
But could not the Minister carry them over?
They will be there. Another point arises. We would have to adopt one or other course here: (1) Either I as Minister am to be directly responsible for this; if the Minister is directly responsible, then let him make his own selection and if he finds that selection is not satisfactory let him make changes; let him be held responsible to the Dáil. And (2) on the other hand, if we are to go in another direction and if the personnel is to be appointed by any other method, then the Minister cannot be responsible. If the Dáil or Oireachtas pass legislation here laying down certain procedure for the appointment of the commission, then the Oireachtas must take the responsibility for the work of the commission. I prefer personally to take the line of giving the Minister the making of the appointments and afterwards holding the Minister responsible for putting the reports before the Dáil and for anything that may go wrong as a result of his selection. It is for that reason that I am not prepared to accept this amendment.
Is it to be argued that because the Civil Service Commission appoints the civil servants that therefore Ministers are not to be held responsible for the way in which these discharge their duties?
No, that is not the point. Before the Deputy developed on that line I had meant as a matter of fact to deal with it. The secretary is appointed by the Government. In practice, I think Deputies will accept it that the Minister in whose Department that person is, has a big say in the matter. It is true that the civil servants are appointed by the Civil Service Commission, but at least the Minister has sufficient confidence in the secretary of his Department. I do not look upon this present appointment as anything like that, but it is at least something on the same lines. I think the Minister should have this appointment.
It is perfectly manifest that this House is not primarily concerned in unduly interfering with the Minister's discretion in this matter. But there is the alternative method of choosing the chairman. Here it is proposed to appoint the one man in all Ireland who has proved himself to be supremely incompetent for the job. Surely the Minister cannot argue that he made a brilliant success as Chairman of the Pigs Marketing Board and of the Bacon Marketing Board. The Minister may argue that he did not disgrace himself, but it is true that at one stage the curers came together and divided up the hypothetical price fund between themselves without any regard as to what was just. We know that the Prices Commission did report that while this particular man was chairman of the two boards, a situation was allowed to develop in which a sum of £350,000 was improperly taken from the public by the curers. Those things are facts and there is no escape from them. I do not particularly blame this man. He was up against a very formidable conspiracy, and I think the wool was pulled over his eyes. That being so, I say now that if the Minister wants the co-operation of the people and if he wants public confidence in this scheme —that confidence which is so requisite if the scheme is to be a success—why does he insist on choosing the one individual in the country who, as everybody knows, has incapacitated himself from filling this post adequately? We are prepared to leave this appointment to the Civil Service Commission or the Local Appointments Commission. We would be prepared to leave it to anybody. I do not think we could get anybody body in reason who, on the face of it, is less competent to fill this post than the man suggested by the Minister. The Minister feels that unless he is allowed to appoint this particular individual, he cannot have any responsibility at all. Why not let him refer the appointment to the Local Appointments Commission or to the Civil Service Commission? I would be prepared to see this amendment dropped if the Minister announces that he would be prepared to choose anybody other than the person he has suggested. I have nothing personally against that man. I had no dealings with him. I never met him but once in connection with some question of the pig industry in Donegal. All I know about him is his public record as chairman of the two boards. I would be prepared to accept anybody nominated by the Minister or his advisers to this post, except the person suggested by the Minister.
Mr. Brennan
I think the Minister made a very bad case for himself and a very bad case for his new chairman. The Minister has tried to create the impression that the chairman was so hide-bound under the Act that he really could not do the things that were expected of him. It is an extraordinary thing that the Prices Commission were able to find all the details, all the costings, and to arrive at certain findings.
They had the power; he had not.
Mr. Brennan
He had power when the thing was reported to come to the Minister, who should have brought it before the House, but nobody apparently took any interest in it. It did not matter what they did away with, whether it was £350,000 or £1,000,000 or £2,000,000; nobody appeared to care. What has given rise to this amendment is that the Minister has intimated that he was going to put back as the new chairman the man in whom we have no confidence and in whom the country has no confidence. Pig production went down while he was chairman. Everything went down while he was chairman except the profits of the bacon curers. They went up, and he stood by and let them go up, and he stood by and let the distribution of £350,000 be made without reporting it. If the Minister says "I am not going to bring that man back again." I am quite prepared to withdraw the amendment. I am quite prepared to withdraw it if the Minister will say: "I have an open mind in the matter, and I will go out and select whosoever I think is best fitted for the position," but he must be a person who has a record before this country of some ability to run the job. I am quite prepared to do that, but I think it is asking too much to ask us to withdraw our amendment and agree—because it is tantamount to that—to putting back as the new chairman the man who has made such a mess of the job in the past.
There is one point on which I should like to be clear. I think the less we argue about this the better. If the result is going to be that the Dáil agrees with me, and that this man goes in as chairman, then the less talk the better if the attitude of the Deputies opposite is that they have no trust in him. With regard to the Prices Commission, the chairman of the boards did report to me that he was disappointed in the powers he had in regard to getting costings. It took some time before he found that the powers were defective, because he had to try several times to get those costings. I think Deputies will realise how slow it is to get legal opinion, and how long it takes before you come to a final conclusion that the thing is actually defective, because I think some of the lawyers did believe the original Act was all right and some believed it was not; eventually it was decided that it was defective, and they could not insist on getting costings. The Prices Commission were coming along then. The chairman was satisfied to let the Prices Commission find out what the position was. When the Prices Commission reported, we were drafting an amending Act. We delayed the drafting of that Act until the Agricultural Commission would also have reported, but in the meantime we felt that the Prices Commission were at least able to keep the bacon curers from making exorbitant profits, because that was their business, and we did not feel there was any urgency for the amending of the law as long as the Prices Commission were there to watch the situation. I do not think the chairman of those boards could be accused of having been negligent as far as that goes. There may have been certain delay in my Department. There is always delay in Departments on matters like that, and I think if Deputies opposite were to be just it would be found that the fault would lie with my Department and with myself at least equally as much as with the chairman if there was neglect. I do not know whether the chairman will be satisfactory in this new job or not. If he is not, I will have power to change him, and I can assure Deputies that if in my opinion any one of the three is unsatisfactory, I will have no hesitation about changing him.
Mr. Brennan
I have no personal knowledge of this man. I do not know what his abilities are and I do not know what his capabilities are, but I have met people who have interviewed him. I have met people who have gone to the bacon board to get certain business done, and every one of those people came back with a very unsatisfactory tale. That is perfectly true.
I must say I have not heard that before.
Mr. Brennan
It is perfectly true.
I have not heard it before.
Did the chairman of the board come to the Minister and say: "The curers have distributed a hypothetical price fund amongst themselves, and I do not know upon what basis they made this division"? Does the Minister remember the paragraph in the Prices Commission report?
I do, and I remember the incident before that too.
Did the chairman come to the Minister and say that?
The chairman explained that before the Prices Commission examined it at all. I am not able to defend this thing here now, because I would have to look up the details, but at the time I can say that it appeared to me it was reasonable. They were prevented by laws, or regulations, I forget which, from paying anything out of the hypothetical fund over a long period, and had only a short period in which they could pay it. Instead of paying 4/- or 5/- on bacon exports over a long period they could only pay 40/-, or whatever it was, over a short period, which would amount to the same thing.
As a matter of fact it was a scandalous transaction. The chairman might have come along and said: "Here is a matter that came under my purview, and I recommend that the law be amended".
I do not think there was anything illegal done.
Surely it was a gross perversion of the purposes of the law, or the Prices Commission would not have made the report it did? Surely a person in that position, with immense funds under his control, has upon him a special responsibility as trustee, and should have come to the Minister and said: "Those men make a case, which I report to you, but so long as I am trustee of those funds they will not be shadily distributed as is proposed. If they are to be so distributed, let Parliament say so, and I will give effect to the decision of Parliament, but I will be no party to a semi-fraud designed to get around the letter of the statute." It seems to me that on every occasion when he should have been the guardian of the producers, and the watchdog of the consumers and the producers, against the vested interests which were represented there, instead of thinking first of those whose trustee he was, he seemed to be thinking first of the curers against whom he was put in to keep constant watch. I can well understand that, if one comes in constant contact on a board of that kind with very able men, such as the curers' representatives were, one is inclined to get more and more under their influence, simply because they are always able to put their case cogently and well, while the less initiated members of the boards are more tongue-tied and less facile in putting their case forward. It is just for that contingency that one chooses a strong, resolute man to be chairman, a man who will take under his protection the less eloquent interests, and, where they fail to make their case cogently and effectively, will come to their aid and fill in the gaps which they themselves are unable to fill in, and see to it that the astute and well-spoken and glib advocate does not get away with everything.
My indictment against this man is that he signally failed there, and in fact proved himself to be a weak man, easily dominated by the astute and able vested interests, and that the net result was that the interests of the producer and the consumer, for whom he stood as trustee, were hopelessly betrayed. The net fact is that the curers went in to the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Boards with a very modest degree of prosperity and came out millionaires. Those are the inescapable facts. What pig producer in this country is the better off from the activities of those two boards, of which Mr. O'Brien was chairman? What curer in Ireland is worse off as a result of the activities of those boards? Who were those boards primarily designed to serve? Was it the pig producer or was it the curer? I understand it was the pig producer, but four years' administration have resulted in the men whom those boards were designed to serve, the producers, being made bankrupt, and the men whom those boards were designed to watch, the curers, getting away with plunder unprecedented in the commercial life of this country.
The Minister argues with me that that man did his job well. I cannot see it. I do not think anyone could have done his job worse, and I think it is a terrible pity the Minister insists on forcing this man upon us when he would be perfectly well employed in some other job and a suitable person chosen to complete the personnel of this board.
Does the Deputy press the amendment?
Mr. Brennan
I am afraid it is the only effective protest we can make, unless the Minister likes to say that he has an open mind in the matter, and then I would be quite prepared to withdraw the amendment.
What does the Deputy mean by an open mind?
Mr. Brennan
Simply that you have not decided to appoint this gentleman. My position is that if I agree to the withdrawal of the amendment, I am agreeing, in fact, to the appointment of this man as chairman, and I cannot do that.
I would not like to leave the Deputy under a wrong impression. I have indicated that my intention was that the same members, whoever they might be, would regulate exports and do commission work in the future, but that they could be changed from time to time. I think in all probability the three members there will carry on for some time.
Does the Deputy still intend to press the amendment?
Mr. Brennan
Yes, I shall have to.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 34; Níl, 61.
Tá
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George C.
- Benson, Ernest E.
- Brasier, Brooke.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Burke, Thomas.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, James.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Coburn, James.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Donovan, Timothy J.
- O'Sullivan, John.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Brennan, Martin.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, John.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Friel, John.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Francis.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moran, Michael.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- Munnelly, John.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Benn ett; Níl: Deputies Smith and S. Brady.
Amendment declared lost.
Mr. Brennan
On behalf of Deputy McGilligan, I move amendment No. 5:—
To add at the end of sub-section (2) the following words:—
"If and whenever the Minister terminates the period of office of a person nominated by him under this section the Minister shall lay before each House of the Oireachtas a statement in writing of the fact of such termination of office and the reasons therefor."
This is only in effect a request to the Minister to implement the promises he has made to the House. The Minister will realise that in that matter of reporting back to the House, the business, certain reports, and so on, that will arise from this new commission, we feel it necessary—and I am sure the Minister himself will feel it necessary—that he should also report back to the House what is asked of him under this particular sub-section, that is, whenever the Minister terminates the period of office of a person nominated by him under this section that he will report that back to the House. It is a reasonable amendment, and I am sure the Minister will readily agree to it.
I do not know if the Deputy was right in stating that there was an undertaking given for that to be done. There was an undertaking certainly that all the proceedings would be reported to the House and if any person were changed that would be noted, but I do not like this point —"and the reasons therefor". I will tell the Deputy why. That appears to me to make it very much more difficult to change a person than it would be in the ordinary way. I might think a person was not suitable, after some experience. I might ask that person to resign so that I could make room for somebody else. In all probability, he would resign and would not put me to the point of dismissing him from the board. But I think that if I were faced with stating reasons to the Dáil for having to remove a man I would be much slower to do it than otherwise I would be. I think in the interests of efficiency, if you like, it is not a desirable amendment from that point of view. As I say, it will be reported to the Dáil if any person is changed, but I think that to ask for the reasons would make it much more difficult to make a change.
That is, if the Minister had power to sack him——
Without saying why.
——and let him go anywhere he liked, it is all right, but if the Minister is asked to explain to the Dáil, he does not like it.
I think it is easier to sack a man without stating the reasons.
That is very candid but it does not seem to be fair.
Mr. Brennan
You could say it was on the ground that he was not suitable.
The Minister could say, as was said last night, that he was inadequate.
I do not know if that would suit or not. I think in practice resignation would always be accepted rather than dismissal. After all, a civil servant anyway cannot afford to be dismissed from a board.
Mr. Brennan
Are you undertaking, or is it contained in the Bill, to inform the House of any change?
All proceedings will be reported to the House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
Will the Minister tell us now what salary is to be paid to the chairman of the board and what salary is to be paid to the two ordinary members?
I have not thought of that. The present salary paid to the chairman of the two boards is £1,000 per annum, but I have not considered the question in regard to the new commission.
Are there not expenses as well? What are the expenses?
Travelling expenses on business of the board, that is all. There are practically none.
None except travelling?
That is all.
Is it intended to pay the chairman of this board more when he has only one board than when he had two?
I think I may say that he will not have more.
Mr. Brennan
Is it quite wise for the Minister, under sub-section (3) of Section 5, to set out that if the chairman gets ill he will nominate a person, one of the ordinary members, to become chairman, giving him all the powers? Then, apparently, they will carry on with just two persons, and only two. I wonder if that is wise. If you want three people to consider a matter of importance it might be better for the Minister to undertake to appoint a chairman for the time being, not necessarily one of the ordinary members. My worry about the thing is that I do not like having the board consisting just of two people.
That is made right in the next section. The position would be that an ordinary member would be asked to act as chairman but his position could be filled temporarily.
Mr. Brennan
Very good.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
(1) The Minister shall before the transfer date and thereafter as occasion requires appoint persons to be ordinary members.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Mr. Brennan
I move amendment No. 7:—
In sub-section (1), after the word "members", line 41, to add the words "each of whom shall be a person who has had not less ten years' administrative experience in the Department of Agriculture."
I do not want the Minister exactly to take that word "administrative" in the sense in which he would take it as regards a civil servant, as with "administrative" I would include "technical". We feel it is necessary that these two ordinary members ought to have some experience of the work, some experience of the job, no matter what way you look at it, and that we should not have as the two ordinary members people who had no experience of pigs and bacon, either of the productive end or the other end. I do not want to embarrass the Minister with the amendment because I do not think it is very important, but I want to point out that we ought to be careful when putting persons in such positions that they have some experience of the business which they are appointed to carry out.
I have no objection to the amendment in principle, and I propose to bring in an amendment to meet it on the Report Stage. I am not sure whether I would say ten years or eight years. I think what the Deputy wants is that we should not, say, bring in a new man from outside, make him a civil servant, and then appoint him as a member of the commission.
Mr. Brennan
Yes.
I will bring in an amendment to meet that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Amendment No. 9 deals with the same principle as amendment No. 5.
Mr. Brennan
The Minister is in fact doing that?
In the report, yes.
Mr. Brennan
He is reporting to the House that he is terminating the period of office?
Yes.
Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 not moved.
Section put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
The chairman and each ordinary member shall be paid by the commission such remuneration and such allowances for expenses as the Minister may from time to time appoint.
I move amendment No. 13 on behalf of Deputy Norton:—
In Section 7, page 6, lines 8 and 9, to delete the words "by the commission".
The purpose of this amendment and of amendment No. 14 is to secure that the payment of the salaries of the commission will be brought under the review of this House. It is considered necessary at every stage possible of this measure to try and secure that Deputies will be given an opportunity to discuss the activities of the commission on the question of salaries, and that is the intention of the amendments.
I must say that I do not like the principle that they should be discussed by the House. The appointment and remuneration of the chairman, the members, and the secretary of the Commission are under the control of the Minister. Below that, the commission regulates its own terms with regard to the staff, and I think it is not desirable that these matters should be brought before the Dáil. I do not know if the Deputy could make a good case really for these matters being brought up here.
If they are paid directly by the commission what control will you have over their activities?
As I said, the balance sheet and the revenue accounts, etc., of the commission will be laid before us once a year, so that you will have a clear statement of the amount paid in salaries, etc., and they can be criticised on that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
(1) The commission may purchase, take on lease, build or otherwise acquire and may equip and maintain such offices and other premises in such places as it considers necessary for the due performance of its functions and may sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any premises vested in it which it considers to be no longer necessary for that purpose.
(4) The commission shall appoint such and so many officers (other than the secretary), servants, and agents as the commission shall from time to time consider necessary for the due performance of its functions and every officer, servant, and agent so appointed shall hold office upon such terms and subject to such conditions as the commission shall determine.
(5) There shall be paid by the commission to the officers (other than the secretary), servants and agents of the commission such remuneration and allowances for expenses as the commission may from time to time appoint.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
Mr. Brennan
I move amendment No. 15:—
In sub-section (1), line 11, after the word "may" to insert the words "subject to the sanction of the Minister".
We think this is important. We do not like relieving the Minister of the responsibility for these things. I would prefer having the Minister responsible rather than an outside authority of this sort.
I do not see much objection to the amendment. In practice, of course, the Minister will have to have some control. They are people whom he appoints and he knows that all this is going to come before the Dáil some time or another. I think that should be sufficient, but I have no great objection to the amendment.
Mr. Brennan
I think it is much better for the Minister to hold that responsibility himself. If we were to allow a body of this sort to purchase or lease lands and buildings, etc., it would be delegating too much power and authority to such a body. I think it would be better for the Minister and the House and everybody that he should retain that authority, and I ask the Minister to insert these words.
If the Deputy will withdraw the amendment I shall have the wording examined and bring in an amendment on the Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Brennan
I move amendment No. 16 on behalf of Deputy McGilligan:—
In sub-section (4), line 24, to delete the word "Commission" and substitute the word "Minister".
It is obvious, of course, what is at the back of Deputy McGilligan's mind in putting down this amendment and that is, not to give this commission authority to appoint a whole host of officers of their own selection. We feel that that ought to be in the hands of the Minister. In fact, we are not enamoured with handing over this business to a commission of this sort. That was expressed very strongly on the Second Reading, and this is an attempt to bring back to the Minister a responsibility which we are afraid is leaving the Minister at present.
I think that would be a very awkward position, more than awkward, an impossible position. I do not know if Deputies who have not been in Ministerial positions realise how difficult it is for a Minister to select from a number of applications for a particular job the one that would be most suitable. The commission have the responsibility for the working of this office, and they are in a better position than the Minister to make a selection. I ask Deputies not to press the amendment.
Mr. Brennan
Supposing the Commission wished to appoint, with the consent of the Minister, are you not prepared to take that responsibility? We do not think it is fair to hand over full powers to a body of this sort. In the amendment we are asking the Minister to retain that power. In fact I would accept this wording, to provide that the Minister's consent is necessary. I do not want the Minister to determine what officers are required, their numbers or qualifications, but this body ought to be obliged to get his consent.
May I put this point, that we do not know what the personnel of the commission may be, but the staff, at all events, ought to be recruited, seeing that this body is akin to the Civil Service, and not an asylum for old men or old women or for friends of the commissioners. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that, so far as the commission is concerned, it would be required to recruit the staff by open competitive examinations, so that everybody, including those who have to pay levies on home produced bacon, for the purpose of selling that bacon cheaper in the British market, will have an opportunity of competing? Let us measure recruitment with fair play, by letting everyone have a fair chance of getting into the service of the commission, rather than have a method of indiscriminate selection. It often happens that the more people one knows the easier it is to get a passport to a job. I want to prevent that, and I am sure the Minister does.
I have tried to avoid the responsibility of making appointments to the commission. I do not see any great objection to sanctioning additional staff before appointments are made. I think that is as far as the Minister should go. If the commission said they wanted to make three more appointments I could then say: "All right, go ahead."
Will you make them subject to competitive examinations?
That is a point I want to consider.
In the recruitment of the staff surely that should be by competitive examination.
There is a certain staff there, and let them carry on provided they are competent. I do not know if I could put in an amendment on the Report Stage dealing with future or additional staffs.
Mr. Brennan
That is all right.
So that the sanction of the Minister would be required for permission to appoint additional staff.
I want to secure that whatever additional staff is recruited will be recruited by open competitive examination. I do not propose to disturb the existing staff. I am not concerned whether the Minister gives sanction or not for an additional staff, so long as they get in by fair methods.
I do not care to contemplate a world peopled exclusively by pigs or that the human race has disappeared, because people as a class will probably survive the Fianna Fáil Party. I agree with Deputy Norton that the further we spread the principle of the public services being recruited by competitive examinations, and the further we get away from the old-fashioned British system of patronage, the better it is for the public services. The Minister very reasonably says that he wants to disembarrass himself of the invidious task of choosing public servants. Deputy Norton and I are pressing him a little further, not only to disembarrass himself of that disagreeable task but to disembarrass the commissioners of the task, and require them by statute to fill vacancies, the necessity for which the Minister has approved, with persons chosen by competitive examination. Then if the commissioners are approached to make a sinecure for a deserving person, they will be in a position to say: "Even if we did make a sinecure, and persuaded the Minister to consent to the creation of a sinecure, no one could guarantee that the person you have in mind would be appointed, because it is left to open examinations and anyone might get the job." There ought to be no difficulty about that. In practice I think that is what the Electricity Supply Board does.
In practice the Electricity Supply Board are, I think, in a position to take in a number in each grade each year as they have a big staff. Here they might be up against the position, that if they wanted an additional man to give out sows, the holding of a competitive examination would be troublesome.
Could you not say for the permanent staff?
If you put it "by competition or by a selection board" that might cover it.
The Minister's difficulty is clear and reasonable, but it would meet Deputy Norton if he said that permanent employees were to be chosen by competitive examination. I agree that if an auditor or a pig dealer was wanted for a fortnight, it would be foolish to have an examination, but have it for what is called in the Civil Service an established officer or a permanent employee.
It is not so easy to get a definition. There is no guarantee of permanency.
Could not the Minister say that any person in the regular employment of the commission would be recruited by open competitive examination? I think that would be easier for the Minister and better for the staff. If there were 6,000 looking for a job under this Bill, particularly after this discussion is reported, it would make it much easier if they were to go through a competitive examination.
I agree.
In that scheme no one could help, apart from merit.
I will try to get an amendment to deal with it. It is difficult to do so.
Agreed.
Amendment 16, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Brennan
I move amendment No. 17:—
In sub-section (5), line 32, to delete the word "Commission" and substitute the words "Minister, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance."
The commission is given full authority to fix salaries and expenses without any reference to the Minister for Finance or any other Minister. Those people are paid out of money collected in a particular way. We must accept responsibility for that, and in order that the salaries may not press unduly on pig producers, which they might if expenditure was high, or if there was overstaffing of the premises, I think the Minister should agree that it is reasonable that some Minister should have a check on the authority of the commission in this matter.
I think the amendment I suggested already would meet that, that before recruiting additional or future staffs the commission would get the sanction of the Minister. Included in that, they should set up the scale of salaries they propose. That would cover sanction.
Mr. Brennan
If you cover the two points you will be wiping out sub-section (5).
I think sub-section (5) is necessary to carry on the present staff and pay them.
At any rate no question could arise, in the event of the amendment proposed by the Minister being adopted on the Report Stage, of large increases being given in the salaries of existing officers?
No, that will be covered too. We accept the position that the present men with their present salaries will come over, but future staffs or future new scales will be affected. There may be men there on a scale. We accept that but, before new scales are made, they must be approved.
Mr. Brennan
You have told the House that you will have to approve, but this is getting the commission out of that. You are giving them full powers without reference to you.
I shall meet that in an amendment.
What is the existing personnel of the office?
I do not know.
Is it a dozen or is it more?
The indoor staff would number almost a dozen, but they have a number of inspectors. These inspectors were appointed on pressure from the producers, because they thought they would like to have a representative of the board there to see that the pigs were properly graded.
How many inspectors are there?
I think there are about 20.
What is the present salary of the chairman?
£1,000.
Is there any allowance for expenses?
Only for expenses of travelling on the business of the board.
Do members of the board receive only travelling expenses?
They receive £300.
Do the members of each board get a salary of £300?
The members of the second board do not get it. The allowance in the other case is £300 and travelling expenses.
That was very nice.
Members of the commission will not, perhaps, be so generously treated.
Do you realise that a mistake was made?
I had nothing to do with it.
Amendment No. 17, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."
Taking Section 9 in conjunction with Section 8, can the Minister tell us whether he has been advised that his consent was required when seconding a member of the Civil Service to the service of the commission, or the consent which he proposes to provide for in the amendment to be moved on Report for recruitment of additional staff? Do these joint responsibilities place upon him an obligation to answer to the House for the proceedings of the commission?
I do not understand the question.
We have been talking a good deal on the question whether the Minister can be questioned about the proceedings of the commission. It is frequently the case that where you can demonstrate to the Chair that a Minister is responsible for appointment of the personnel, or payment of the expenses in connection with a certain service, you are entitled to question him about it. Has the Minister taken advice or consulted the Ceann Comhairle as to whether the responsibilities placed upon him under this Bill expose him to questions in relation to the proceedings of the commission?
I do not know whether or not Deputy Dillon was here when Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Cosgrave were discussing this question. I agree with them that if we could get a position in which we would have a debate once or twice a year on questions affecting the commission, and have no questions put in the meantime, it would be the ideal position. If the commission were to withdraw a licence from a factory, for instance, it might not be advisable that I should be questioned about it here forthwith. I might have to answer regarding it when the report would come before the Dáil, but it might not be desirable that I should answer at the time.
This matter really arose by a side-wind—whether reference to Ministerial responsibility entitled us to question the Minister. I do not know at what stage we can bring that question to a head. So far as I am concerned, if the Chair would permit us to bring it to a head now, I would undertake not to return to it on any subsequent section of the Bill.
It would arise on Section 14, which deals with the laying of reports before the House.
Mr. Brennan
I want to raise an entirely different matter—a question of principle. This Pigs Commission will be, or ought to be, a sort of subdepartment of the Department of Agriculture. We cannot compare it in its entirety with the Electricity Supply Board or the Sugar Board because it will not have any resources of its own on which it can fall back. Its funds will be entirely derived from levies imposed upon the producers of pigs. It is set out in the section that the Minister for Finance may direct that certain demands from the Ministry of Finance be met as recoupment for the services of civil servants seconded to that particular work. We are placing this new board in the same position as the Sugar Company or the Electricity Supply Board, who have resources of their own and are carrying on commercial undertakings. I do not think that it is fair to divorce the Department of Agriculture in that way from the particular type of work to be carried on by this commission. After all, the Department of Agriculture is being subsidised by the country for the purpose of promoting agriculture and this is a branch of agriculture. It is questionable that it is fair to impose upon pig producers responsibilities for the recoupment to the Ministry of Finance of sums paid to civil servants who are seconded in that way.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 10.
(3) Nothing in sub-section (1) of this section shall apply to the disclosure of any information for the purposes of any legal proceedings (whether civil or criminal) taken or proposed to be taken under the Acts of 1935 and 1937 or this Act.
Mr. Lynch
I move amendment No. 17a:—
In sub-section (3), line 51, after the word and bracket "(criminal)" to insert the words "or in any arbitration proceedings".
It is not clear whether the disclosure of information under Section 39 of the Act of 1937 would be included in that saving clause. If the Minister persists in having the chairman of the commission as a member of the arbitration body, he would have certain information at the back of his mind that he had obtained as a member of the board and I think it would be right that the other members of the arbitration body should be supplied with that information. Otherwise, he would be armed with more information than his colleagues on the board might have. If the words are not put in he might shelter behind the prohibition regarding disclosure of that information.
I do not know how that could arise. The provisions regarding the arbitration proceedings are set down in the previous legislation. A certificate must be given of the average profit made from pigs. That is placed before the arbitration board. After that, it is a question of the number of pigs produced, and so on. I have suggested an amendment here for finishing the arbitration proceedings. Whether it is considered satisfactory or not, I do not know.
Mr. Lynch
It is an improvement.
At any rate, it will finish it, one way or the other. If the three members who are already appointed cannot agree, then I ask one of them, other than the chairman: "What is your decision?" and that ends it. I do not see any great objection to Deputy Lynch's amendment, but I do not know if there is any necessity for it, under the scheme we propose to adopt now.
Mr. Lynch
But the change in the scheme would not change the situation. However, I am not pressing the amendment.
Is the Deputy withdrawing the amendment?
Mr. Lynch
Yes, with permission.
I should like to have a further explanation from the Minister with regard to this matter of the chairman.
Well, the position would be in a case where there is not agreement. Some legal opinion, on one side, says that there must be unanimous agreement, and other legal opinion says that there need not be unanimous agreement, but we are making it clear that, if two members give their decision, that disposes of the matter, and if we cannot get agreement, I say to one of the two, other than the chairman, "What is your dicision?" and that is the end of it.
I see.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move Amendment 18, on behalf of Deputy McGilligan:—
In sub-section (3), lines 51 and 52, to delete all words after the word "criminal", line 51, to the end of the sub-section.
The purpose of this amendment is clear. It simply proposes that, if the commission should requisition certain information from a person whom it has invited to make representations or reveal certain matters, the matters revealed as a result of that requisition will not be used subsequently, against the person who makes the revelation, for the purpose of criminal or civil proceedings of any kind, and that, in fact, the information so given will be treated in the same way as the Revenue Commissioners treat information which reaches them: that is to say, that it can be revealed to nobody else for any purposes, and that, if any branch of the Department of Justice, or any other Department of State, is bringing forward a prosecution in a certain case, information that has been acquired from the accommodation files of the Revenue Commissioners cannot be used as evidence.
That was not my reading of the amendment.
What was the Minister's reading of the amendment?
If that is the meaning of the amendment, I think it is quite a good amendment.
Well, how does the Minister read it? If you simply strike out the last words of the section, I think it meets the case.
The sub-section says that "nothing in sub-section (1) of this section shall apply to the disclosure of any information for the purposes of any legal proceedings, whether civil or criminal, taken or proposed to be taken under the Acts of 1935 and 1937 or this Act".
Yes. The purpose of the amendment is to strike out the words after the word "criminal".
My reading of the amendment was that information that was got through legal proceedings could be disclosed.
Surely, what it means is this: Suppose that a person is alleged to have committed a crime, and it is sought to prove against him that he has systematically indulged in this criminal practice, you cannot call a member of the Bacon Commission into court and say: "In the reports made by this man to the Bacon Commission over the past ten years, has it not repeatedly turned up that he engaged in the criminal practices with which he is now charged?", with a view to demonstrating that the crime that he has committed is part of a system of crime that he has been committing in the past. That seems to me to be the purpose of the words proposed to be struck out, because the words proposed to be struck out restrict the restriction of proceedings taken under the Pigs and Bacon Acts of 1935 and 1937 or of this Act. When we strike out these words, we prevent a member of the commission coming into court in connection with any civil or criminal proceedings that may arise. In other words, if you strike out the words that Deputy McGilligan, in this amendment, proposes to strike out, you prevent a member of the commission going into court to give evidence in relation to information that he has acquired in connection with sub-section (1) of Section 10 of this Bill.
How does the Deputy say that a member of the commission is prevented? In one case, you say that he cannot go in, and then another sub-section says that he can go in.
The sub-section says that:—
"nothing in sub-section (1) of this section shall apply to the disclosure of any information for the purposes of any legal proceedings, whether civil or criminal, taken or proposed to be taken under the Acts of 1935 and 1937 or this Act,"
and sub-section (1) of this section says:—
"Subject to the provisions of this section, it shall not be lawful for any member or officer of the commission to disclose any information in relation to the business of any other person obtained by him in his capacity as such member or officer."
Sub-section (1), in effect, says that you cannot talk, and sub-section (3) says that you can, if it is a matter of civil or criminal proceedings taken under certain sections.
Well, I think that the wisest course would be to withdraw this amendment, provided that we have permission to put it down on the Report Stage in, perhaps, another form.
I think that would be better. I must say that I am not very clear about this, but my idea was exactly the opposite from what the Deputy has said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
(1) The quorum for a meeting of the commission shall be two.
Amendment No. 19 not moved.
Mr. Brennan
I move amendment No 20:—
In sub-section (1), after the word "two", line 54, to insert the words "but it shall not be lawful for any member to absent himself from any meeting without furnishing in writing a satisfactory explanation of his non-attendance to the Minister and to the commission".
This is to ensure that the Minister will be given an opportunity to avail of sub-section (3) of Section 6, which gives the Minister authority to appoint an ordinary member of the commission where somebody is temporarily incapacitated. Our idea is that we do not want the business to fall into the hands of two persons, and we think it would be advisable that the Minister should be informed of the fact that any member cannot attend, giving his reasons for non-attendance. I think the proposal in the amendment is reasonable.
I suppose it is reasonable, but I do not know if it would be practicable in all cases. For instance, there are small matters in connection with which the board must meet from time to time. Take the case of one of the ordinary members of the commission, who was going on holidays. Before going on his holidays, he would probably make inquiries as to what serious business there was to be disposed of, and an arrangement might be come to whereby that business might be dealt with before he went on his holidays or held over until he came back, but there might be a few small or routine matters in connection with which he would say to his fellow members: "I have no objection to your dealing with these matters while I am away." I do not think it is likely that, in practice, any one of the three members would permit serious business to be done in his absence. I think it is better that we should not be bound by a rigid phrase like that.
Mr. Brennan
I can see the Minister's point. As a matter of fact, a meeting of the board might have to be called to sanction small payments or deal with other small matters.
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 21, standing in the name of Deputy McGilligan:—
Before Section 12, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) A member of the commission shall not, while he holds office as such member, retain, purchase, take, or become or remain interested in for his own benefit any shares or interest in any company or concern trading or dealing in any way in pigs, pork, bacon or offals.
(2) Any member of the commission who shall retain, purchase, take or become or remain interested in any shares or interest in contravention of this section shall be disqualified for and be deemed to have vacated his office as such member.
It does not call for much explanation. It seems to be a reasonable kind of proposal, and I imagine the Minister would be prepared to approve of it. It means that any person taking an interest in a bacon curing business, or in any kind of business over which the commission is designed to exercise restrictions, cannot be a member of the commission.
What exactly is the meaning of "interest"?
Well, shares—or a job.
I just want to put this point: Supposing a member of the commission said: "I keep a pig". Is it any harm?
No, unless it is a company concerned in trading in pigs.
Unless it is a corporation solely for the purpose of keeping pigs, there is no harm. I do not see any objection.
It is not intended to prevent him from eating bacon?
That is another point.
I take it that the Minister will bring in something to cover it on the Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
(1) The commission shall keep all proper books of accounts and other books and records and shall within six months after the end of every year prepare and transmit to the Minister and to every licensee, a statement of accounts (duly audited and certified by an auditor appointed by the commission with the consent and approval of the Minister) in respect of such year.
(2) The commission shall in each year, at such date and in such form as the Minister may direct, make to the Minister a report of its proceedings during the preceding year and the Minister shall lay such report before each House of the Oireachtas.
(3) The commission shall furnish to the Minister such information, statistics and returns as the Minister may from time to time require.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.
I move amendment No. 24:
In sub-section (1), line 32, after the word "accounts" to insert the words "including a revenue account, a profit and loss account and a balance sheet".
The object of amendment No. 24 is to ensure that, in the presentation of statements of account to the House, we shall have detailed statements of account which will include a revenue account, profit and loss account, and a balance sheet, so that a proper picture of the finances of the commission will be available. A proper picture of its trading would provide an opportunity of examining the ramifications of the undertaking and the direction in which the policy of the commission is moving, from the financial standpoint. I cannot imagine any objection to it on that account. I cannot imagine a commission of that kind objecting to give an opportunity to members of Dáil Eíreann to examine the details of the undertaking.
I think that is fully covered in Section 14, which says:
(1) The commision shall keep all proper books of accounts and other books and records and shall within six months after the end of every year prepare and transmit to the Minister and to every licensee, a statement of accounts (duly audited and certified by an auditor appointed by the commission with the consent and approval of the Minister) in respect of such year.
Any account that would be passed by an auditor would contain all the information that is required.
I am satisfied if the account is duly presented and I take it that that is the intention.
Yes, certainly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 25, standing in the name of Deputy McGilligan:—
In sub-section (1), line 33, to delete the word "commission" and substitute the word "Minister" and in line 34, after the word "Minister" and within the brackets to insert the words "for Finance".
This is a proposal to have the auditor appointed by the Minister.
The auditor is appointed by the commission, with the sanction of the Minister.
Would the Minister not agree to take over the appointment of the auditor?
I think it might very well be left as it is.
I think it does not matter, so long as approval is required. This is a proposal, I think, to have the auditor appointed by the Minister for Finance. It says: "with the approval of the Minister for Finance."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
With regard to amendment No. 26—
In sub-section (1), line 34, after the word "year" to insert the words "and the Minister shall, as soon as may be, lay such statement of accounts before each House of the Oireachtas"
—it goes with No. 24.
It does. The Minister himself must lay the report before the House, as in sub-section (2).
In so far as he lays a report, will he lay the accounts as well?
Yes.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
I move amendment No. 27:—
At the end of sub-section (2), line 38, to add the words "together with copies of such information, statistics, and returns furnished to him by the commission under this Act as may be necessary for the proper understanding of such report."
This is founded on the electricity supply legislation. It was argued then, and I think clearly established to the view of the House which then discussed it, that the report and accounts might mean little or nothing and that there might not be the amount of information necessary to clarify certain accounts. Under the electricity supply legislation, the Minister would have to make up his mind as to what statistical information or other information would be necessary for the clarification of accounts. I think when he got enough to clarify the situation, he was bound to bring all such information before the House. This is an attempt to bring that situation about. It says:—"together with copies of such information, statistics, and returns furnished to him by the commission under this Act as may be necessary for the proper understanding of such report". It has clearly that simple intention. The Minister definitely knows that a bare statement brought before the House by this body may not mean anything, but if the Minister would have under this particular proposal a duty passed on him, he would thoroughly understand the accounts and be in a position to explain them before the House, and he would probably in such a case have other information and other reports and statistics and these would have to be brought before the Oireachtas.
I refer the Minister in this connection to the rather elaborate reports published each year by the Electricity Supply Board. They are not at all confined to a statement of revenue and to the things put down here—revenue account, profit and loss account and balance sheet—and proposed by Deputy Norton. They do include those, however. The Electricity Supply Board's report has become somewhat stereotyped here now, but in the early stages they produced a comprehensive report giving all the information which would be required in order to inquire reasonably into the matter and understand the position of the board. I suggest to the Minister that something of the same sort ought to be done. For example, one might want to understand how the pig industry as such is faring under the guidance of this particular commission. Merely giving accounts does not indicate that. The Minister knows the Pig Industries Tribunal report which was published. I do not at all expect that the commission would publish anything like that year after year, but they might publish something which would embody the main features of such a report.
If Deputies would look at Section 14, in sub-section (2) they will find that the Minister is bound to lay accounts before the Oireachtas. Sub-section (3) says the Minister is entitled to get from the commission information, statistics, and returns; and if (2) and (3) were put into one sub-section and all that laid before the House, it would cover the point.
Exactly. We do not want the Minister to get information from the commission and then keep it all to himself. I take it this matter will be reconsidered on the Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 28:—
Before sub-section (3), to insert the following new sub-section:—
(3) It shall be competent for either House of the Oireachtas at any time to consider every report or statement of accounts or other information concerning the proceedings and transactions of the commission which, under this section, the commission are required to furnish, make or transmit to the Minister.
Frankly, the object of this amendment is to bring the activities of the commission under review by this House, believing that once we part with complete control of the pig rearing and bacon curing industry to a commission of three persons, it is necessary to provide safeguards, not merely for those engaged in pig rearing and bacon curing, and in the bacon curing industry as a means of livelihood, but for the consumer and for the general well-being of the industry as well. It does not seem to me that anywhere in the Bill is there adequate provision for that, and the object of the amendment is to ensure that it shall be competent for either House of the Oireachtas to consider every report and statement of accounts relating to the commission's transactions, so that we will have an opportunity of focussing the floodlight of publicity on the commission's activities, and in that way be able to ventilate any grievance which may come to light in the course of the commission's activities and, at the same time, to ventilate any grievance which may arise in connection with the work of the commission. I think it is an eminently reasonable amendment, particularly when we give a commission of this kind such very wide powers, because, bear in mind that these powers virtually include the right to levy taxation on home-consumed bacon for the purpose of subsidising the selling of that bacon at a lower price in an export market. Therefore, we ought to have an opportunity of reviewing its activities and expressing a viewpoint with regard to these activities.
I do not know exactly what the amendment leads to. By the section as I propose to have it amended, the commission would, in the first instance, have to supply all the audited accounts with regard to revenue, profit and loss, and so on, and also such statistics, tables and other matters the Minister might ask for. All these would be laid before the House, and, according to the procedure, the House could discuss them. I do not know if the Deputy is getting any further than that in his amendment, and I do not know whether it is any addition to the section. Deputy Dillon wanted to raise a point as to how far the House should interfere in this business, and I think it might be well to settle the point at this stage.
I am prepared to go this distance. The House will remember that Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Cosgrave, both men who have had Ministerial experience, intervened on Second Reading to point out that they very much doubted whether it was desirable from anybody's point of view that the Minister should be open to day-to-day inquiry as to details of the day-to-day administration of this commission. Their experience weighs very much with me, and all I am concerned to do is to retain in this House the power to protect the consumer of bacon and the producer of pigs from exploitation of any kind, if such protection should ever become necessary. Therefore, if the matter is brought before the House from time to time and here discussed, I believe that protection will be forthcoming. Some people might say: "What will you do if there is an abuse current and the report of the commission is not due to come before the Dáil for several months?" My answer to that is: "It is true that it may be necessary to allow that abuse to continue until we get the chance of discussing it, but the knowledge that it is going to be discussed sooner or later will, in itself, act as a very effective deterrent on this commission from doing anything which they know Dáil Eireann would disapprove of, if they came to discuss it."
Therefore, the first plan that suggests itself is that a report on all fours with the report of the Electricity Supply Board should be requisitioned and that the procedure in that regard should be followed. The procedure there is that the Minister for Industry and Commerce presents to the House the annual report of the Electricity Supply Board, and anyone who wants to debate it can apply for a day, but, so far as I know, he has no constitutional right, no statutory right, to get it. He can get a day if he can persuade the Government Whip to prevail on the Government to make available Government time for its discussion, but he is frequently stalled off. It may be that we, the principal Opposition, or the Labour Party, may bring sufficient influence to bear on the Government to force them to give a day, but if Deputy Cole, Deputy Burke of Clare, or some other independent Deputy, wants to discuss some matter arising out of the report, their representations may not carry sufficient weight to get Government time when they could make their view heard.
I suggest, therefore, that there should be a slight difference in the procedure here. This is a business that affects every small farmer in the country, and it is a business in regard to which we have already burned our fingers, and I, therefore, ask the Minister to consent to the procedure of an annual, or semi-annual report which he would be required to get the House to adopt. That would impose on the Minister the obligation of putting it on the Order Paper. In many years, he might get it passed like the Expiring Laws Bill in ten minutes, but in years where there was a grievance abroad, he would have a row. He would know that, if he tolerated abuses, he was going to have the deuce of a row when he brought the commission's report before the Dáil, and he would know that he could not avoid doing so because there was a statutory obligation on him to get it adopted by the Dáil. If that is done, I think it is a sufficient safeguard, and I am prepared to accept it.
I do not see any objection to it, but I wonder how we stand with regard to procedure and how a section might be drawn to cover the point?
The difficulty I find myself in this matter is that, as I understand the Minister's proposals, he is going to have a chairman who is independent, in the sense that he is not going to be a civil servant, and two civil servants on the commission. I do not see how, in those circumstances, the Minister can avoid being questioned, if the House wishes, from day to day on the procedure of that commission, because he is answerable for the civil servants.
They are members of the commission.
They are still civil servants, and there is going to be repayment by the commission to the Minister for Finance for their salaries.
They are not full-time, remember.
They are part-time commissioners and full-time civil servants.
I do not know that there will be any recoupment.
In any event, it is coming back more into the House. The Minister will have charge of them. They are part of his establishment. They may be off for some part of the day or week, but I do not see how, in those circumstances, the Minister can prevent himself being questioned from day to day. At the time the Electricity Supply Board was set up, there was a different plan. The idea then was that the board should be flung out at arm's length from Government, and that Government should not be allowed to interfere; but it was also realised that as that board was getting a very big advantage in the way of having public credit and certain public moneys at its disposal, the community ought to get something. The something required was the greatest publicity, and the way in which that was arranged was that the House was invited to suggest what they thought the Minister should be empowered to require from them, and the Minister was made to bring that before the House. As we all know, a matter can be laid on the Table, and, if a resolution is put down calling for censure or making some point on it, the matter may lie there for months, but there was a promise given when that Bill was going through that if anybody having the support of the Party indicated that he wanted the report discussed, it would be a matter for arrangement with the Whips. There was a definite background of promise that Government time would be given, but, in fact, that time has never been asked for in connection with the Electricity Supply Board reports. They gave such full information that it has not been found necessary.
The Minister's difficulty, however, is somewhat different from the one I am speaking of. The Minister on this amendment appropriately says that even if you set out in the amendment that it shall be competent for either House to consider every report, it is always competent for the House to consider any report that is put before it. The point is not the competency of the House to do so but to get an opportunity to discuss it. I know of no precedent where there is this requirement that the Minister should bring in a report and should within a limited period get the approval of the House for it. I do not know of any precedent for that but it is a thing that will have to be done if we are going to have the functions of Government more and more distributed over boards of this kind. Some new procedure under the Parliamentary institution will have to be evolved whereby these things are brought into the House and are open for discussion. The Minister is right when he says that there is no precedent for this but I think he should try to make up his mind as between two systems: firstly, bring the board back into the House, have the Minister responsible for it and have it shot at daily by questions in the House or, alternatively, push it as far as possible from the House and then try to devise some system whereby you would have full publicity at stated periods for what it has done and whereby there would be an obligation on the Minister to bring in a report, to be guaranteed by a statutory requirement. Opportunity would have to be given for a discussion of the report if Deputies asked for it.
As I have said, I expect this commission is to be a temporary arrangement, and we are likely, at the end of a year or two, to have either the Department of Agriculture doing this job or to have a board composed of entirely outside people. As it is a temporary arrangement, if the House would be satisfied, I have no hesitation in agreeing that, after the report is laid on the Table, the House should have an opportunity of approving or disapproving of it.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he would be prepared to consider introducing a revolutionary procedure in this matter, whether he could not be persuaded to impose upon himself a statutory obligation to get the report adopted by Dáil Eireann within a certain number of weeks after it is presented to the House. If that proves intolerably onerous in respect of this commission, we shall have learned a lesson and, as the whole scheme is experimental, it can be rejected at the end of the experimental period if it has proved to be a failure. If, on the other hand, it proves to be successful then it might be possible to extend it to other Departments to the great advantage of everybody. It might be possible to decentralise a great deal of the routine business which we are reluctant to decentralise at the present time.
We shall have to bring in a provision to provide for the contingency if it is rejected by the House.
What the Minister is thinking of is Orders and regulations. They impose obligations on outside people. The report of the commission would not be doing anything of that kind. It would be simply a record of what had been done. If the House should express disagreement with what the commission had done over a period, there are two alternatives: the Minister gets out or he gets the commission out but there is no such aftermath or consequence as would naturally be in our minds if we were considering Orders or regulations. I do suggest that Deputy Dillon's proposal might be considered. It is unfortunate that this proposal arises only in connection with a Bill which we are told is only of a temporary character and also in regard to a Bill which may cover a body which is only to a small extent under the control of the House or is entirely independent. It is a pity that in such a Bill, which is a "mix-between," we should be discussing a thing which is a completely new and bad procedure, namely that Governmental work is being thrown into the hands of outside bodies and these bodies are being removed from the control of the House and from day-to-day criticism. We are taking matters out of the control of the House. I think it would be worth while if the Minister brought in a suggestion on the lines of Deputy Dillon's proposal, that the Minister should, within a certain time, have the report produced and should bring forward a resolution calling for the approval of the report.
I think that would work all right but it does look as if there is a void which is not provided for there. What would happen if they rejected the report?
I take it that the form of the motion submitted by the Minister would be that the House approve of the report but circumstances might arise in which the Minister would ask the House to disapprove of the report. He would explain to the House why he proposed to do that and why he proposed to invite the House to join with him in disapproving of the commission's report. Alternatively, he might come in and try to whitewash the commission. The House might take a different view and reject the Minister's motion and in that event the Minister and the commission would have to go. It is quite possible that the Minister would come in himself and condemn the report and ask the House to join with him in condemnation of it.
I am quite prepared to do something to cover that.
What does the Minister offer?
The section as amended would mean that the Minister is empowered to ask the commission for all accounts, balance sheets and profit and loss accounts under the various funds, and also for such statistics and tables with regard to pig production as might be useful to the House. We can lay all these things on the Table of the House and ask the House to consider the report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 29.
In sub-section (3), line 39, after the word "Minister" to insert the words "at such times and in such form and manner as the Minister may direct."
This is rather a small matter and I put it down simply because of my memory of the electricity legislation. It was suggested at that time that if the matter was left as it is here in this Bill, the Minister might come in and hide behind the board and say: "Well, if the information is put in such a form as not to be really clarifying to the House, it is not my fault; it is the fault of the commission." It was provided that the Minister under the existing legislation should have precise control, that he should not merely say: "I want information on this, that or the other point," but "I want it to be put up to me in this, that or the other form." It particularises not only the information but the way in which the information is to be presented, and it does deepen the responsibility of the Minister.
I think we can consider the whole thing together.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 15.
(2) The following provisions shall apply and have effect in relation to each fund kept by the commission in pursuance of this section—
(a) there shall be paid into such fund all moneys received by the commission which are required by this Act to be paid into such fund;
(b) there shall be paid out of such fund all moneys which the commission are required by this Act to pay out of such fund, and no other moneys;
(c) the commission may for the purpose of meeting charges required by this Act to be paid out of such fund, borrow on the security of such fund;
(d) so much of such fund as in the opinion of the commission is for the time being not immediately required for the payment of sums payable out of such fund under this Act shall be invested by the commission in securities in which trustees are by the law for the time being in force authorised to invest trust funds;
(e) the commission may from time to time at their discretion vary or transpose any moneys (being part of such fund) invested under this sub-section into other investments authorised under this section, and may at any time sell and convert into money all or any investments made by them under this sub-section;
(f) all dividends and interest received by the commission on investments (being part of such fund) made by them under this sub-section or in respect of the sale of any such investments shall be paid into such fund.
I move amendment No. 30:—
In sub-section (2) to delete paragraph (c).
I am not clear about the necessity for giving this commission power to borrow. Why does the power to borrow seem necessary?
I do not know if this power was also given to the Pigs Marketing Board with regard to the hypothetical levy fund. It was thought that, at times, the fund might become exhausted, and that it might be necessary to borrow for a short period. I do not know if it will ever be necessary here. I take it that they will collect these levies monthly and pay out monthly. It is possible that the amount of the levy may be a little bit below the amount required, so that the fund might get overdrawn before they raised the levy. I do not see how they can meet their commitments in regard to the fund unless by means of borrowing, to some extent, before they raise the levy, so that they will be able to meet their increased requirements.
If there is going to be borrowing in the sense that I understand it, then it is certainly a matter for bringing in Ministerial authority and supervision, especially when this big step is being taken of removing these matters from outside the control of the Oireachtas. I do see the difficulty that they might get into, and, in order to meet it, require an overdraft from time to time, but when I read the word "borrow" in the section I did not give it that significance. I thought it was really a question of raising loans. I suggest to the Minister that he should have the section amended to read:—
may for the purpose, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, borrow on the security of the fund.
I do not see why they should not have to come to the Minister for that.
This will be merely an overdraft. The draftsman considers that we must refer to it as borrowing.
It would be imposing no hardship on the commission if they had to get the consent of the Minister for Finance when they had to raise money.
It is well to remember that under the old boards pretty large amounts, such as £750,000, were being handled, and that there were occasions upon which, within 48 hours, you had £250,000 sterling disbursed. Suppose the commission marched into their bankers and disbursed £300,000 on an overdraft, and that it subsequently transpired this money should not have been disbursed at all, it would be very awkward. I can see the draftsman's difficulty in choosing words which would permit the commission to have a reasonable discretion in raising an overdraft on their current account, while at the same time restraining them from contracting large liabilities. But could something not be drafted which would require the commission to get authority from the Minister for Finance to apply to their bankers for leave to overdraw so much? If that were done, they would be limited to the overdraft which the Minister for Finance had approved of. If, from time to time, it is desired, even temporarily, to get further bankers' increased accommodation, they would require them to go back to the Minister for Finance and get his permission to ask the bankers for that increased accommodation. The situation then would be, as I envisage it, that on the 1st January, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, the commission would apply to their bankers for authority to overdraw their account to the tune of £10,000 at any time; but that if, in the middle of May, it appeared they would require an overdraft of £25,000, they would go back to the Minister for Finance and, having got his authority, would apply to their bankers for authority to overdraw the account to the extent of £25,000. In the absence of the second application, the Minister would know that they could not overdraw beyond £10,000 and, in addition, the bankers would not be entitled to give an overdraft beyond that sum unless evidence was produced to them that fresh permission was forthcoming from the Department of Finance for a larger overdraft.
I suggest, as a way out of the difficulty, that the Minister might insert words to the effect that they might "within such limits as were authorised by the Minister for Finance borrow on the security of the fund". That, I think, would give them some manæuvring space in cases where they wanted to get, say, an overdraft of a couple of hundred pounds. If there was this limit, the Minister would always have control, and the Dáil would have control through the Minister for Finance.
I do not know what the procedure may have been when Deputy McGilligan was Minister for Industry and Commerce, but the tendency, with regard to those various boards over the last five or six years, has been that the Minister concerned should, as far as possible, deal with them without going to the Minister for Finance. In order to keep within that procedure, it would be sufficient, I think, to put in some such words as these "subject to the sanction of the Minister", and leave the Minister for Finance out of it.
If the Minister agrees to put in such words as "within such limits as shall be authorised by the Minister", and takes it to the draftsman, and if he takes it before the Government, I think I can tell the Minister that the section will come back with "Minister for Finance" stuck in.
I do not think it will.
Looking at this in a practical way, if some person has money to lend and a borrower comes to him, naturally the first question that is asked is: "What security have you to offer?"
Take the insurance fund which is a simple one. The banker knows that the amount coming into that fund every month is about £3,000, and that, under the present levy the same amount roughly is paid out. If they find they are not collecting enough they will go to the banker and say that they must have a slight overdraft for a month. They will tell him that, in order to put the fund right, they are going to raise the levy.
This fund has probably a month's life, as far as the banker is concerned. That is all the security that he has. Unless he can see a prospect of the money he advances being made good, he is not going to advance it. It seems to me to require something more than the statutory provision that the fund has perhaps a month's life in order to enable the commission to borrow money on the security of it as it stands. I do not think any bank would advance money on that.
The bank will not advance very much.
If the intention be that money will be required at a particular time, is it wise to put in a provision such as this. I doubt very much if a bank would advance a very considerable sum on security such as this. I do not think it would advance £10,000.
As the Deputy says, it would depend on the security.
Yes, it would depend entirely on it. In a case of that kind, would it not be better if the Minister had more control over them? These three individuals on the commission have an existence only at the pleasure of the Minister; it does not seem to be good security.
The Deputy is quite right. The bank will not give a great overdraft. If the chairman of the commission goes to the bank and says: "We will need the overdraft for a month or two", probably the bank will say: "That is all right", but I do not think they would go farther than that.
The time may come in the life of this commission when they would not get sixpence from a bank.
They may not.
The Bill contemplates this commission having some money?
Yes.
We contemplate a board with enough money to build a suite of offices for themselves. There is no provision there for money to be advanced to them. They are setting out to live in a modest way until they accumulate large funds. Then they can blossom out with a suite of offices.
All these Bills have that provision in them.
I hope we will not have mushroom growths all over the city marking these boards. Supposing you say "to borrow with the authority of the Minister", or "within such limits as are authorised by the Minister"?
Yes, "such limits as are authorised by the Minister"; that would meet the situation.
Could we not limit it to not more than the income for a certain period?
I do not know. It is very hard to define it. In the Insurance Fund there is a very regular income, but in the Levies and Subsidies Fund there might be a big income one month and nothing at all the next month. It is not easy to cover it. We can bring in something on the lines of the amendment suggested by Deputy McGilligan.
Very good.
Amendment No. 30, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 31:—
In sub-section (2) (d), line 17, before the word "securities" to insert the word "Irish".
Does Deputy Norton insist that the commission should invest the money in Bank of Ireland stock?
No, in Irish securities.
We take it then that it would be invested in Bank of Ireland stock?
No, it is limited to trustee stock like the stock of the Dublin Corporation, the Cork Corporation, or any trustee stock.
I take it that this amendment is being withdrawn on the understanding that the Minister will submit an amendment on similar lines?
The Minister is undertaking to look into the matter?
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
The commission may make regulations in relation to any matter or thing referred to in this Act as prescribed.
Mr. Brennan
I move amendment No. 32:—
After the word "prescribed", line 35, to add the words "and a copy of each and every such regulation when so made shall be forthwith forwarded to the Minister".
This amendment explains itself. We want to keep the Minister as far in as we can, and it will be a check upon those people to feel that the regulations will have to be laid before the Minister. I do not think this will be any impediment on the board.
Every regulation must be published in the Iris Oifigiúil, as in the original Act. The Minister sees to that.
This does not meet Deputy Keyes' point in the next amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 33:—
At the end of the section to add the following new sub-section:—
(2) Every regulation made by the Commission under this section shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution anulling such regulation is passed by either House of the Oireachtas within the next subsequent 21 days on which that House has sat after such regulation is laid before it, such regulation shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything done previously under such regulation.
This seems very similar to amendment No. 69— one of Deputy McGilligan's amendments.
The object of this amendment is to ensure that every regulation made by the commission shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas so as to give them an opportunity within the next subsequent 21 days of annulling such regulation, but preserving immune anything done previous to the annulment of such regulation. In setting up this commission we are giving it power to control the industry in its entirety. We give it power to levy what may be termed taxation, to finance the export trade; we are giving it power to invest moneys, to borrow moneys; to fix prices in the home market and by its home market policy, inferentially, to determine prices in the export market. The commission consists of two civil servants and one non-civil servant who are not so far responsible to this House. The object of this amendment is to ensure that where the commission gets the wide powers contemplated by this Bill that there should be an obligation on them to submit every regulation made to the House, so that the House would have an opportunity of annulling such regulation. In that way we preserve to the House control over the commission. I cannot imagine that the Minister can make a strong case against giving that control to the House. It will not be exercised in the case of any trivial matters, nor will the power be availed of to ventilate frivolous grievances. The amendment is asking that the House should have control over the commission, power to annul any regulations made by them. In that way the House could fix attention on the work of the commission.
It is important that very big matters of this kind should rest in a Bill which, we are told, is of a temporary nature. There is considerable value attached to this amendment. At the moment legislation is partly done in this House, but in the main we are almost getting to the point of developing principles of legislation in the House and leaving the details to be filled in by outside bodies. That may be a system to which the complicated nature of Government business will drive us, but in that case there should be publicity given to these regulations and those who are curious about such regulations should have them available in a form in which they can be understood. I am very keen on having any regulations made by these boards put in such a form and given such publicity as will ensure that they are known, that they are understood and that they are there ready to be interpreted and brought up to date from time to time, because these are matters which we down in the courts have some experience of. You get regulations, and when they are discussed it is then found that they are completely out of date as the events against which they were drafted may have passed and the time lapsed. We want them to be kept in the form in which legislation should be kept. I move to report progress.
Progress reported. The Committee to sit again at 8 o'clock.