Vol. 106 No. 9
I move amendment No 1:—
In the definition of the expression "agricultural product" to delete paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) and to insert in lieu thereof the following paragraphs:—
"(b) any animal, whether alive or dead, or any part of any animal,
(c) milk, or any product of milk,
(d) eggs,
(e) honey,".
It is felt that the section as it is is not sufficiently comprehensive and this amendment is regarded as a necessary improvement.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (1), paragraph (b), line 1, page 3, after the word "matters" to insert the following words and brackets: "(including the prohibition of storage)".
I do not think there is very much need for this amendment, but it is felt that it will strengthen the position.
I was wondering in what circumstances the Minister contemplated that it was necessary to have this provision.
Take the storage of rabbits, for example. There is a close season with regard to rabbits, and it is possible that rabbits might be killed during the close season and stored, and then, when the close season came to an end, rushed on to the market.
Surely the Minister knows that there should not be a close season, that it was the people interested in the trade and not in getting rid of vermin who encouraged his predecessor to decide on a close season? As a matter of fact, the time to kill rabbits is in what is known as the close season.
Rabbits are a fairly important business now.
They are a fairly destructive business, too.
I agree.
Rabbits will be delighted to hear that.
I hope the Minister will consider it.
I move amendment No. 3:—
At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
( ) The names of persons to whom licences are issued under sub-section (1) of this section shall be placed in a register kept for such purpose by the Department of Agriculture and such register shall be open to inspection by members of the Oireachtas free of charge and to members of the public on payment of a fee of one shilling.
If the Minister considers that in certain circumstances there must be a restriction on the export of an agricultural commodity and that that commodity must be exported under licence, and if certain individuals are granted licences for that purpose, it is only proper that the public should know the persons to whom such licences have been issued. I cannot stop my mind reverting to the economic war when cattle were exported under licence and to the way in which the issue or these licences vas abused. Licences were issued to people who were never in the cattle trade before. I am not suggesting that that will occur again, but I suggest that if people are to be licensed for the export of a particular commodity, the export of which is to be restricted, the public ought to be aware of the persons to whom the licences have been issued for the purpose. Members of the Oireachtas ought to be in a position to inspect the register of people licensed and, if necessary, ask questions with reference to that register and the names on it, and the public ought to be in the position, in their own interest, to inspect it on payment of a fee of 1/-.
The Deputy, I am sure, will realise that licences are issued in thousands by my Department. There are gift licences and trade licences, and I am sure he does not expect that it would be possible to keep the type of register to which he refers. These licences are issued by different sections of my Department in different places, and the compilation of a central register, such as he appears to have in mind, would serve one purpose only — not a purpose with which, I suspect, the Deputy, or indeed any member of the House, could have much sympathy. It would serve the purpose of adding to the Civil Service, without, at the same time, making any contribution whatever to the community.
The issue of trade licences is very limited. They are not always issued, as the Deputy seems to think, to conserve supplies. They are often issued because of the insistence by the Government to which the commodity is being exported — as in the case of salmon — that a certain quantity be sent and that it be consigned to a central authority, such as the Ministry of Food. I am not prepared to accept this amendment because, as I said on Second Reading, there is no objection to him or any other Deputy at any time putting down a question on the Order Paper seeking information as to the manner in which licences have been issued in regard to these trading matters. I take it that he is ruling out entirely the thousands of other licences, such as gift licences, which are issued from time to time by my Department in respect of all kinds of food. These licences deal with very small parcels and there would not be any sense in having the amendment applied to them. So far as the other licences are concerned, they are very limited and deal with such commodities as salmon, rabbits, and poultry. We keep in the different sections of the Department certain records and we have never refused to make available to Deputies, on request, information which was legitimately sought. To ask us to compile the type of register which the Deputy has in mind would impose a great deal of extra work on the Department and necessitate the setting up of a separate branch on which public money would have to be spent. Such a branch could not possibly hope to give any results, nor would it make available information which cannot be secured by those who are legitimately seeking information. I think I have covered this point sufficiently. The Deputy and the House should be satisfied that there is no need for this elaborate and expensive organisation.
My anxiety is to satisfy the public that there is no preferential treatment of any kind in the case of restriction of exports. I want the public to be satisfied that the people who get licences to export any commodity are the people who, of right, should get them. I should be amazed if some register were not kept in the Department. Surely, in the sections of the Department where licences are issued a register is kept. I am not suggesting that a general register should be kept.
If there is a register in one section of the Department and if a man is interested in the commodity with which that section is concerned, surely it would not cost much more to make that register available for his inspection. I suggest that he should pay a fee of 1/- for inspecting it. If the particular commodity in which he is interested is restricted as regards export and there are competitors in the trade he should have access to the register if he feels that he has a grievance — if, for example, he is denied a licence and he wants to ascertain who have got the licences and why. If he desires to get his representative in this House to put a question regarding the matter, he should be in a position to inspect the register and ascertain what is happening.
I have given an example. It is a notorious fact that the issue of licences during the economic war was abused. People were brought into the trade who were never in it before. That is what prompted me to put down this amendment — the abuses which took place at that time. If we pass legislation restricting export except under licence, we should provide the necessary safeguards. If it is in the public interest to provide those safeguards, there should be no question as to the cost. If it is in the public interest to keep this register, it should be kept and the fact that we have to pay a civil servant to keep it is no excuse for not keeping it. This is an important matter and a matter of principle. There is a responsibility on the Minister and the Government to satisfy the House and the country that the administration by the Department is properly, efficiently and judiciously carried out.
Is there a danger in the selection of licensees that people who may be interested in the exportation of certain goods may be deprived of licences in order that the channel may be so narrowed that a few persons engaged in the industry will be able to exploit matters? That strikes me very forcibly in regard to the exportation of fish. I know cases where people are dependent on outside sources for supplies — supplies from outside their own area. The possibility is that some enterprising individual in the locality may be in a position to secure that market and export that particular commodity. That might apply to any commodity. I suggest to the Minister that the granting of licences should be on broad lines in order to protect the interest of the producer. Licences should not be confined to a particular section which might be inclined to monopolise the whole business.
Deputy Heskin seems to forget that, in disposing of produce of any kind, there is a seller and a customer. That customer has the right to stipulate the manner in which he is to get the commodity in question and the centres from which he is to get it. The Deputy will appreciate that, for some time past, a great part of our exports have been handled in that way. They have been taken, in other words, by the British Minister of Food. The British Ministry of Food will, in certain cases, insert their own stipulations in the contract. We are entitled to point out any objections we have to them.
They mil not select individuals here.
They will stipulate the number.
That is a different matter
That is the matter I am trying to make clear. Having stipulated the number, it is our obligation to arrange matters so that the stipulation will be observed. In what way can the fears to which Deputy Hughes gave expression arise? A licence, is necessary for the export of canned meat. Everybody here knows the number of canners. Everybody knows that there is a contract with the British Government as to the quantity they will take in any one year and the price at which they will take it. Once that is determined, that quantity must be distributed amongst the canners. Everybody here knows that, for the proper observance of that arrangement, a record must be kept in my Department of the way in which each canner is fulfilling his start of the contract. That information is on record in my Department and that information, just as the other information to which I have referred, can be obtained by members of this House and those who are legitimately seeking particulars. I do not regard it as in the public interest that I should open up a register of the kind to which the Deputy has referred. I want to put it quite clearly on record that I am hostile to this proposal in every shape and form because I regard it not only as cumbersome and costly but as unjust. It would be an injustice if a register dealing with the business affairs of all sorts of people were compiled in my office and were to be open to every Tom, Dick and Harry who liked to walk into the place for the purpose of seeing what quantity was being obtained by individuals and so forth. The suggestion is that he should get that information on the payment of 1/-. If Deputy Hughes thinks that that would be in the public interest and that there is any analogy between the case he has cited in the economic war period — the situation then could not be handled by county committees of agriculture when the issue of licences was transferred to them — and the situation here. I do not agree with him.
I reject in toto the suggestion that it is in the public interest that should be done, having regard to the facilities there are for dealing with complaints made by businessmen as to the manner in which I am doing my job and the facilities they, have to bring me into this House and compel me to give an account of the manner in which I do that work. Having regard to these facilities, I am not prepared to open up such a register which would, as I say, be unjust and would not serve any purpose except the purpose of extravagance and the enlargement of the Civil Service, about which we hear so much.
Take the case of fish. If there were a glut and if the seller here and the buyer across the way were not in a position to cope with the glut of a perishable commodity, such as that, would the Minister be in a position to overcome that difficulty as between buyer and seller so that the producer would be protected?
I am afraid that the Minister has completely destroyed any case there might be against this amendment. He stated that the British Government imposes certain stipulations in regard to exports from here, thereby definitely indicating that the intention of the people on the other side would be to reduce the number of exporting firms. Thereby, it is admitted that the number of licences for the export of important commodities would be limited. The fact that the number would be limited would render the compiling and keeping of a register a simple matter. The Minister cast aspersions on the motives of people who might be seeking access to a public register of this kind. He spoke about every Tom, Dick and Harry coming in and having a look over the register. Every Tom, Dick and Harry has to pay the taxes which maintain the Minister's Department and every Tom, Dick and Harry must be regarded as a lawabiding citizen until he has broken the law and been convicted of so doing.
Every Tom, Dick and Harry is entitled to know how the national services are being administered, and if he pays the appropriate fee of one shilling for looking over this register he is entitled to look over it, not only in his own interest but in the public interest as well. It is all right to say that anybody can go to a Deputy and get the information he requires. Business people do not want to run after Deputies every hour of the day. They like to get their information quickly and privately without any fuss in regard to association with politicians. I think business people are entitled to that information and no pretext of expense being involved should be allowed to stand in the way of providing ordinary citizens of this country with the information they are entitled to.
Deputy Hughes referred to the position of export licences for cattle during the economic war period. The same situation arises here, though it is in the reverse, that is, in regard to the limited import licences during the emergency. Grave charges have been made in regard to the manner in which import licences have been allocated to certain firms. People are entitled to know how licences are given in any particular sphere of business. We know that in the drink trade people have to go into open court to make their applications for licences and that every matter is thrashed out in the presence of the public. That is quite right. When a Government Department sits down to perform a judicial function the public is entitled to know as to whether Tom, Dick or Harry is to have the licences he is entitled to have and that decision should be open to the public for inspection.
I really cannot understand the Minister's hostility to this proposal and why he has objected so emphatically to it. After all he does propose to confer a certain benefit on a certain number of people in this country. This benefit will be conferred at the expense of other people who are engaged successfully in the same business and who, in fact, may be much better qualified to carry on this business than the person to whom the Minister has selected to grant the licence. This proposal does not affect; in any way the position of buyer or seller nor does it affect the position of the Minister in relation to the British Ministry of Food on the other side, or the regulations made by the British Ministry of Food, but it does vitally affect the people engaged in the sale of agricultural produce in this country. It means that a certain small number will be selected by the Minister for certain privileges and, naturally, other people who have been engaged in the same business for a, great number of years will want to know why these favours have been conferred on this certain limited number of people and why they themselves have been ignored.
Surely there is nothing wrong officially, administratively, or in any other way with the proposal made in this amendment that a register should be kept of the people to whom such licences are granted. Every Deputy in this House and every Minister in this House knows perfectly well that there is a certain amount of uneasiness, almost suspicion in the minds of the public at the present time as a result of the manner in which these licences have been granted. It may be a coincidence that the majority of these licensees happen to belong to a certain political Party.
After all, it is only human nature to be inclined to favour a certain type of applicant rather than another — is there any reason to assume that the Minister may not be so inclined?—who might probably be in a position to conduct the business more successfully. However, the public is entitled to this information. It is not a question of all classes or types of people going to the Department of Agriculture and seeking information of this kind. The people who will be looking for this information will probably be the Deputies of this House and people in the trade who are interested for trading reasons. I suggest that they are entitled to get that information. It should be the duty of the Government and of the Minister to facilitate them in their search for information in this connection. There is nothing extraordinary in the proposal contained in this amendment. It is in the interests of the public that such a register should be kept. I suggest that the Minister should see to it that such a register is kept and placed at the disposal of the people who want information.
I was rebuked by the Minister for suggesting that this sort of information should be disclosed. This is not a private business. It is public business——
It is no such thing.
——concerning the affairs of the country. When the Minister interferes with the export of any commodity and when the Minister proposes to restrict the market so far as the agricultural community is concerned and to bottleneck it through a few individuals then the public certainly is entitled to know who is selected for that purpose. It is a cod to say that the British are to tell us who is to be selected.
Nobody said so.
We know well and the public knows well that there was abuse of this sort in the past. There was abuse so far as the restriction of exports was concerned and so far as the restriction of imports was concerned. I say that a register of this sort, open to the public, should be kept both for exports and imports and that this House should insist upon it. It is mere window-dressing on the part of the Minister to suggest that there will have to be an elaborate register kept, that we will want a big number of civil servants to keep it, and that it will be so cumbersome and difficult that it will add a couple of millions to our already bloated expenditure. Surely if the Department is doing its business properly the register is there already and there should be no difficulty in making that register available, not to every Tom, Dick and Harry, but to the people interested and to Deputies. The man whose business is restricted and who is denied the right to export a particular commodity, while another man gets facilities and privileges in competition with him, is-entitled to know why the other man is selected, what were the tests, and were there any political tests applied to the selection. That is my point. If the Minister wants to demonstrate to the country that his selection is fair and impartial in every case he should welcome the amendment.
Has the Minister satisfied himself that no abuses have taken place in connection with licences? Apart from this matter, I have, in mind abuses in connection with textile licences, where licences were issued to a number of people who made huge fortunes during the past few years.
This Minister is not responsible.
Do not get me on textiles.
Is there a danger in connection with the commodity under discussion that that position will be exploited to the disadvantage of the general public and to the considerable advantage of the profiteer?
Does the Minister deny that licences were issued in the past to people outside the cattle trade, to those not legitimately in the trade?
The Minister knows that the same allegations were made when he gave authority during the last two or three months to local authorities to select traders for the distribution of seed oats and that traders in every county of the 26 came to me afterwards and said: "Never do that again; distribute them yourself." As Deputy Cogan has stated, in circumstances such as these grave charges will always be made against public men who have responsibility in matters of this kind. Grave charges have been made in this House and have not been sustained.
I am sustaining them in connection with licences that were issued.
I cannot prevent Deputy Hughes being truculent in this House and behaving like a school boy. I cannot prevent Deputies making grave charges. I do not want to prevent them from making grave charges. I would regard myself as very foolish if I were not able to meet grave charges when they are made against me. Deputies should realise that there is no intention on my part or on the part of my Department to introduce any licensing system unless (1) it is necessary as a result of a trade agreement with another Government; (2) unless there is a prohibition of imports into another country in excess of a certain quantity; (3) unless it is regarded by the Minister for Agriculture and by the Government as a whole as, essential in the public interest that commodities required here should be retained here. With that picture in our mind as to the use that will be made of the powers which I am seeking here. Deputies will see that there is no desire in the ordinary way to introduce a system of licences only where it is necessary because of any of the three conditions to which I have referred. In any of the three conditions which I have cited somebody must have the responsibility. It is unfair of Deputy Hughes to misrepresent a recent discussion on a matter of this kind by suggesting that an outside Government would attempt to interfere in the selection of the personnel.
It was the Minister suggested that.
No such thing. I said that they might suggest the number.
Not the individuals?
Not the individuals. I made that quite clear. I think it is absolutely childish that a Deputy posing as a responsible Deputy in a discussion on a matter of this kind should attempt to distort words in that fashion. It is not because of any desire on our part; it is because of the fact that we may have a trade agreement with a country stipulating the amount of a commodity which we have agreed to export to them that I must have a means of regulating the export of the commodity.
No one denies that. That is not the point at issue.
It is the point at issue.
If you have to do that the public ought to know whom you are selecting for export. There is no use in side-stepping the issue.
The public will know. The Depute is asking me to open up a register in which will be contained information as to the man's business, where he got the commodity, where he is sending it and what quantity he is sending.
Will the Minister read the amendment?
I am replying to a statement made by Deputy Hughes a few moments ago in which he said that the public, or as he termed it, every Tom, Dick and Harry, were entitled to get the information as to who got the licences, the amount they were exporting, the person to whom they were exporting, etc. I do not accept that it is in the public interest that that should be so, and I am entitled to form my opinion as to what is in the public interest. Strangely enough, I have such a respect for my opinion on that matter that I would put it far ahead of the opinions of most other people and, that being the case, I would like Deputy Hushes to realise I am not at all accepting his suggestion that it would be in the public interest that I should do so.
It is further suggested that I can use this unfairly. In what way? Take canned meat, eggs, poultry, rabbits or salmon. These are some of the main items. The number of canners is known here. Could I exclude one of these canners from a contract made with the British Government? Of course, I could not. I would not even try and, if I did, I would not get away with it. Is there any prohibition against any man going into the egg business? All he has to do is to build a suitable premises and equip it to the satisfaction of the officials of my Department.
What does that mean?
It means that it will have a certain floor space and that it will be a certain height. It means just the same as if a farmer is building a house in which to live, or if the local authority is building a number of houses for labouring people. There is somebody with technical knowledge called upon to say whether or not the houses are being erected according to specification. I take it that even Deputy Hughes will agree there must be people here and in other countries capable of determining a matter of that kind.
In what way will I keep a man out of the egg business? If a man wants to export rabbits he just pays a fee of £1 and becomes a licensed exporter. We have 300 or 400 on our books and there is no reason why there should not be others, provided we are satisfied. We will not allow someone who just comes along without examination as to what his general reputation is. If we should refuse any individuals a licence, these men are not so sensitive as Deputy Coogan would suggest and, if an injustice has been done, you may feel certain that it will be ventilated in this House or in some other way.
I have examined this matter very closely and I say there is no reason, in view of the facilities that are available to those who want to make legitimate inquiry, why we should extend this matter in that broad sort of way and give the extensive particulars about people's business suggested by some Deputies. I do not accept what Deputy Cogan says. Every man and woman is a taxpayer. I do not accept that it would be fair or in the public interest that a detailed description of every man's business should be on record for purposes that we may not now suspect. People could go in and on the payment of one shilling they would be able to lay their fingers on all these matters. That is carrying this matter of giving information to the public to an extreme that was never intended. It is not my intention to do so, seeing that all reasonable information will be given to those who are legitimately seeking it, and who are entitled to get it, in a form that will not be injurious to any man to whose business it refers. It is the Minister who should be the judge of that. In view of the arguments that have been made — stone-wall arguments —I will not accede to the Deputy's request.
This is the democratic way of doing things. I am merely asking that the public should be entitled to certain information. The Minister is the servant of the people, but he denies the people their rights to certain information. The Minister deliberately misrepresents me when he suggests that the quantities of goods and where they are sending a particular commodity should be made available to the public. I am merely asking for a register of the people who export. The section sets out:
"On the application of any person made in such form and containing such particulars as the Minister may direct the Minister may, if he thinks fit...."
He can select whom he likes and decide whether a man, on his record and on the volume of his business, is entitled to a licence or not. He can make his selection in that way. Now he says the House is not entitled to that information. We know what occurred before in connection with those matters. On the Second Reading, I merely appealed to the Minister, without any reference to what occurred, to put in a provision so that any man interested in a particular business should have the right to know who has been selected and who is privileged to export a limited amount of goods. The Minister is merely trying to sidetrack the whole issue when he introduces things not at issue at all. When we have a trade deal there are at least two parties involved, and if we select certain individuals to implement that agreement we are entitled to know about them. It is the democratic way of doing it and it ought to be done that way.
There seems to me to be a great deal of heat about a very small matter. The Minister referred to the amount of information which a man might be seeking. I cannot see where he gets that out of the amendment. So far as I read it, it asks only for a register.
Names only.
There does not appear to me to be anything in the amendment which would call for the amount of business to be disclosed or the person to whom the goods are being consigned. To go back to a statement the Minister made as to the circumstances under which he would make these Orders, he explained his intention, bat I think that the Minister ought to remember that his intention, unless it is expressed in the Bill, will not carry much weight. This is a matter which is always cropping up here. The Minister says: "I do not know what the I House is getting excited about; I merely intend to do so and so." That does not bind the courts in their interpretation of the Act; it is only what is on the face of it. There does not appear to me to be anything in the nature of the Minister's intention stated on the face of this Bill.
I think he ought to reconsider this amendment. He might, prefer a different phraseology, or that it should be tightened a bit so as to make it clear that it is only a register of names of persons to whom licences are issued that should be included. I cannot see his argument that the register to be kept would be an unwieldy thing. Presumably, the Department will have to keep a record of persons to whom licences are issued. I can see a great deal of good in that being available to Deputies and to members of the public, particularly those who are affected. The Minister may not know it, but in other Departments registers are kept and a great deal of inconvenience is sometimes caused to traders because they can never find out how or why people can get a licence and how and why other people cannot.
I cannot see why the Minister is taking such a strong objection to this amendment. I cannot see that it does any great harm, or that it could cause inconvenience to the Department, or where the Minister gets the idea that this entails the disclosure of business matters to the general public. Surely, a register of the names of the persons by whom licences are got is a very innocuous form of register. I do not see how that will adversely affect the people on the register. The back of every directory contains classified lists of traders and yon can look them up and see who is in a certain class of business. That does not disclose their private affairs in a manner to which they could object. I think the Minister ought to reconsider the matter. I would prefer a change in the wording of the amendment, but if the Minister cannot see his way to do that, I suggest that he would have this matter looked into again with a view to bringing in an amendment on the same lines on the Report Stage and the House would then be satisfied.
I would appeal to the Minister to consider the amendment on the lines which Deputy Sheldon has put to the House. As I read the amendment, all that would be required would be to keep a names register in addition to whatever register of licences may be kept. The amendment merely asks for a register of names. I cannot for the life of me see what objection the Minister could have to a member of this House, or a member of the public for that matter, inspecting a register of names of those to whom licences have been granted. That register of names would not disclose in any way any private particulars of the grounds upon which the licence was granted or any private particulars of an indivdiual's business. For that reason I cannot see any objection to the amendment.
We have such a register.
It is not open to inspection.
By whom?
By any member of the public.
By anybody from Grafton Street or Henry Street who wants to look at it? It is not open to that type of inspection.
I cannot see why public business should be transacted in the secrecy of the Department.
There is no question of secrecy.
I cannot see why that should be so. The Minister's argument would suggest that it is such a secret matter that it must not be disclosed to the public. May I remind him of the system which obtains in many of the States of America? A list of the amounts paid in income-tax by every citizen in America is open to public inspection. If I see that Mr. X is paying only £50 tax while I, having no greater income, have to pay £95, I promptly direct the attention of the Department to the fact that Mr. X should pay at least £95. That system works in the open light of day and prevents many abuses under the income-tax code in America. I think if we had a similar system by which all business transactions relating to this Department were open to the public light, it would disabuse the public mind of any suspicion that might arise that an improper use was being made of these licences. We are not seeking to place the Minister or his officers in any embarrassing position before the public. All we want to know is who are the people who have obtained licences from the State for the export of certain commodities. I fail to see why the Minister should get heated about this matter. I think it is a very reasonable request and I would ask the Minister to reconsider the amendment. It may need a certain amount of re-drafting for the Report Stage. I would ask him not to divide the House on this matter because we feel that there is a matter of principle involved and the public are entitled to this information.
It all depends on the manner in which you want the public to get that information. I am not at all denying the right of the public in certain circumstances and along a certain line of procedure to get information on these matters. What I am denying is the right to ask me to compile a register of the people to whom we issue licences in the way in which this amendment asks. If a woman gets a permit to send a turkey to somebody in Birmingham or to send a tin of beef, a dozen of eggs, a half a pound of butter or some other commodity to an invalid sister or mother in Glasgow who requires this nourishment, let us exclude that. The amendment provides that we should keep such a register. Let us exclude such cases and turn to matters of trade. Of course my Department keeps a record. There are, I think, nine or ten canners in the country. It is they, and they only, who export canned beef under licence. There are 35 people exporting salmon. They, and they only, are allowed to export salmon to the British Ministry of Food. There is a record of these people in my office.
And the people are entitled to know who they are.
Is it suggested that everybody who walks up Merrion Street, turns into the Department and wants to look at the register should on the payment of a "bob" have the right to do so? If Deputies think that is the manner in which the public are to be permitted to get information, I do not mind having to come here once in a while and face Opposition Deputies accusing me of all sorts of things, rather than to permit a situation of that kind to arise.
Is the Minister aware that at the present time licences issued by his Department are on sale? Does he think that is desirable?
I do not know but even if that were so, what could I do about it?
Surely the Minister knows that that is a situation which undermines the confidence of the publie. It is to remedy that situation that the amendment is proposed.
I have never been asked in this House, nor has my predecessor as far as I can remember, the names of the people who are exporting canned meat to Britain. Nobody asked me who had the right to export salmon. Nobody asked who had the right to export rabbits. Nobody asked why John So-and-so was refused a licence.
Is it not time it was asked?
If the Deputy gets cross it will be a bad finish to the week. Nobody ever asked me for information of that nature and members have the right to ask me at any time.
Would they get it?
If I do not give it, you can treat me as you like. I have, as every Deputy has, to go to the public and justify my action before the public. As I say, in public matters I have to keep myself in a position in which I shall be able to do that. I think that that assurance should be good enough without asking me to do what is entirely unreasonable—to accept an amendment which provides that information which is kept only for certain purposes should be made available to people who would walk in and who would regard my Department as a show place in which the general public might parade in order to inspect the records of my office.
Surely the Minister is aware that anybody can, by paying 1/-, inspect a will. I have never heard it suggested that you have the general public queueing up — burning with curiosity — at the office to inspect wills, and in that way annoying the people in the office.
When a man makes a will and dies, he does not mind who reads it.
I take it from what the Minister has said that he is indicating that he has no objection to Deputies getting this information. If the discussion had been started on that line, and if the Minister had said that Deputies were pushing an open door and could get this information, a great deal of heat would have been avoided. I am sure Deputy Hughes would be satisfied if he knew that the register would, in a reasonable way, be made available to Deputies. So far as the general public are concerned, I do not suppose they are going to queue up with 1/- in their hands to see this register. I think that if the Minister had taken a gentler attitude it would have avoided a lot of heat.
I did.
Not that heat does any great harm on a Friday morning. I would be very dull without it. I take it from what the Minister has said that in regard to these matters, Deputies can always make inquiries, and that when they do so they will be reasonably satisfied by the Minister's Department. I think if that had been said earlier a great deal of dissension on the other side of the House would have disappeared.
Would the Minister be prepared to accept the amendment if we delete all the words in it from the word "free" to the end? That would leave the register open to inspection by members of the Oireachtas, or it could be tabled in the Library.
In one way or another this information is supplied to Deputies in documents which they get from time to time. I think most of them do not know that they are getting it, and never bother their heads about it. I have said that Deputies have their rights and privileges deriving from membership of the House, and that I must be here to answer for my acts. Since that is the position, I am not going to allow myself to be tied up as if I were some absolutely irresponsible person.
Is the Minister trying to suggest that, if I table a Parliamentary Question asking him for the names of ever; person on the registers kept by his Department for licensing purposes, I am going to get that information?
I am trying to suggest——
I will test the Minister next week.
——that a Minister has responsibility to the people of this State, and that in the exercise of that responsibility and of his judgment and discretion, he has all these matters to take into consideration, and they will be taken into consideration. If there is any fault to be found with any of my decisions then, as I say, the people on the opposite side have full freedom to make any use they like of it.
When the Minister said that there were only 35 exporters of salmon in this country he did not mean, I take it, that that number could not be exceeded?
The salmon are exported to the British Ministry of Food, and if the point of view of the British Ministry of Food were accepted it would prefer that the number of exporters should be much smaller. As a matter of fact, it was as a result of our efforts that the number was made so large in order to cover the trade as best we could. Deputies can see that all these are factors that must be considered. The other person has his point of view, and while you may seek to establish your own point of view, there are times when you have to give way.
The Minister referred to licences for poultry. This point has just struck me, that poultry are not mentioned in the amendment to Section 1. Presumably, the intention is that poultry should come under "animals" or any "agricultural product". If that is the Minister's intention why, may I ask, are eggs specifically mentioned, because eggs are also an agricultural product. I am not trying to make any trouble about this. I am simply pointing out that some question might arise about it later, seeing that eggs were specifically mentioned. It might be said that the intention was to exclude poultry.
The point the Deputy refers to is covered by the word "animals". It includes poultry.
When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?
In view of the fact that a good deal of poaching is taking place, that hares are being exported as rabbits and cock and hen pheasants are being exported as rabbits, I would ask the Minister to introduce an amendment on Report Stage to provide against that abuse of privilege by certain licensed holders. I have a couple of cases in mind to which I will call the Minister's attention at a later stage where hares are exported as rabbits.
There is nothing before the House. We want to know when it is proposed to take the Report Stage.
The Minister should introduce an amendment on Report. The penalty is cancellation of licence.
Would the Deputy wait until it is decided when the Report Stage is to be taken?
Next week. I may have an amendment on Report, Sir.
Deputies are entitled, of course, to refuse me the other stages now but I could have got all stages last week if it had not been for the fact that I had an amendment of my own.
You would not.
It is rather too petty to refuse me all stages having regard to the discussion we have had.
There is nothing petty about it. The Minister is not right when he suggests he could have got this Bill last week. I had in mind, from the time I read this Bill, to put in that amendment. I had no intention of giving the Bill to the Minister last week and I have no intention of giving it to him now.
The Deputy has had his say.
I intend to table an amendment for Report.
