When we were discussing this Resolution on the last occasion, the Minister was not able to tell us very much about it. Deputy Briscoe intervened to fill in the gaps, but could the Minister now tell us what he has ascertained in the meantime as to the necessity for requiring licences for these matters, what the licence is for, what amount of money will be charged for the licence and what amount of money he expects to make?
Committee on Finance. - Health Bill, 1952—Financial Resolution (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following Financial Resolution:—
That provision shall be made by statute for the making by the Minister for Health of regulations relating to filling material for bedding, cushions, articles of upholstery, toys or similar articles and providing for the imposition of certain charges.— (An tAire Sláinte.)
The Rag Flock Act of 1911 was abolished in the 1947 Health Act and re-enacted with certain additions. The 1950 Act which was approved by Deputy Mulcahy as Miniister was drafted exactly as the section is drafted in the Bill, so that I am really putting a section before the Dáil which has the approval of every Party in the Dáil. This deals with fillings for mattresses—not only flock but other fillings—to ensure that they are clean and healthy and the provision has been asked for not only by people engaged in the trade but by the Trade Union Congress. A Financial Resolution is necessary, because, even though the Act might be passed providing for the making of regulations, including the licence fee, the licence fee cannot be collected except after the passage of such a Resolution. The licence fee is very small—I cannot say exactly what it is, but I think it is about £2 —but there is no change, so far as that is concerned. It has been there since 1911 and is being continued.
It is a provision to get rid of infectious filth, some of which is noticeable here on occasions.
Surely this is covered by the 1947 Act? I have looked up Section 67 of that Act and it seems to cover all the things implied in this Resolution, with the possible exception that finished mattresses now appear to come into the offing. Does this mean that if people want to engage in the manufacture of mattresses, a licence will in future be issued to such as want to do so? In other words, it would appear to me that this is a restrictive trade practice. The 1947 Act enables any sanitary inspector to go into any house on behalf of the health authority, inspect anything that is not clean and have it destroyed, whether it is a mattress or a child's toy—anything which is stuffed with some sort of material.
I cannot quite understand why the Minister comes to the House looking for money because he seems to have everything he requires under the 1947 Act. His officials are enabled to go into a house and seize anything they think is unclean and have it destroyed.They are enabled to prosecute anybody in any way responsible for housing or storing filth. Why this Resolution now? Why does the Minister seek further powers? There is a gradually growing conviction in my mind that the whole meaning of this Health Bill is to enable health authorities to get complete control of everything in the house to-day. I cannot read the Bill in any other way. What else can be behind it? Surely all the authorities exist already—the sanitary authorities, the medical officers of health and the people responsible for enforcing the provisions of the 1947 Act? Why must the Minister now come in and look for further powers?
Is it that the Department or the health authorities feel that they have not enough control already and must come in on this, or is it from the other angle that we must look at it, that there is to be a rigid control of the manufacture of this particular type of article? Could the Minister give us any information as to how many firms will be affected by this licensing provision, how many licences exist already for the manufacture of these articles and how many further licences it is intended to grant? What is the sum of money which is to be collected as a licence fee? Is it £100 or 30/- and is it something which is going to turn this type of manufacture into the hands of the well-off? Is it to be a sort of trade ring or racket? That is what we on this side are anxious about.
We look on this matter from two angles. We dislike the licensing provision and we object to State control and have never made any secret of our objection. Deputy Browne has spoken about the door being open and the foot ready to kick it open further and he is quite right when he says that. We are gradually handing over our birthright to the State and some day we will cease to be individuals and will be known as units, as a result of all this type of legislation. This is another step on the road towards that condition of affairs. These are the two aspects which we do not like—we do not like this licensing provision and we do not like this idea of monopolistic control and further interference with the private life of the individual. TheState has stepped in and taken control and is regimenting and assessing our lives each day. We object to that in its entirety. Therefore we are opposing this Money Resolution.
I am really amazed at the attitude being adopted by the Fine Gael Opposition and in particular by a member of the medical profession. The Minister stated a few minutes ago that the section for which this Money Resolution is required was already in the 1911 Act. Even if it were not recollected by Deputies opposite, the Minister has pointed out that in the 1950 Bill that particular section was drafted as it is presented to-day. All this opposition with regard to this Bill by Deputy Dr. Esmonde is amazing. Does Deputy Dr. Esmonde really want to pretend that he believes what he has just stated? He has talked about the power under the 1947 Act for a sanitary officer to go into a house for the purpose of destroying infectious material which may be there as a result of an infectious or contagious illness.
This particular Money Resolution is in connection with a section of the Bill which is designed to prevent manufacturers or business people collecting infected materials and handing them on to others to be used as raw material for a commodity to be sold to the public. Will Deputy Dr. Esmonde tell me that he is against protecting the public from the possibility of such behaviour? As a medical practitioner, does he think the State should not take the necessary steps to ensure that raw material of that nature which could be dangerous to the public will not be so used? Does he think he is justified in getting up here pretending that he thinks so?
There has been all this talk about State control and about the fee. I listened to the Minister answering Deputy Mulcahy in connection with the fees. Deputy Dr. Esmonde says it may be £100 because Deputy Dillon said so the other night.
Could the Deputy tell me what the fee is likely to be?
The Minister has justsaid it will be a negligible sum, possibly £2.
I did not hear him then.
Of course the Deputy did not hear him, because he did not want to hear him. Nobody on the other side of the House to-day wants to hear anything that appears to have any sense in it. They only want to hear what they think will suit the line they are taking at the present moment.
Deputy Dillon, the other night, was amazed to discover that the Money Resolution related to something which was already in the Bill before us. He was further amazed, and so were some of his colleagues, to discover that the explanatory note with the Bill when circulated gave in clear detail interpretations or explanations of the sections concerned. This comes from a Party for which Deputy Costello has stated that the Bill has been examined line by line, section by section, and will be opposed line by line and section by section. They did not even know that Section 53 was in the Bill and did not even know what it meant or what it was all about.
I do not know what the idea is behind the present behavious. There can be differences of opinion on certain principles and members of the House are entitled to express a point of view they believe and about which they believe other people may have a view. It stretches the elastic too far when Deputy Dr. Esmonde can make the opposition he has made to this Money Resolution. He cannot say he is not an educated person. He has a degree from a university where he must have had sufficient education to be regarded as a normal intelligent person. I have heard that there are certain comedians who are well known for making the ridiculous out of the serious.
The purpose of this Money Resolution is quite clear to me. I hope the public will understand it also. It is to ensure that there will be ample protection for the public against the sale of any material or article containing something which could be injurious to health. The ordinary people will understandand will appreciate that we are now taking the necessary steps to prevent the use of contaminated materials. This section is bound to stop that.
There was talk about rackets. Deputy Dillon said that this Money Resolution was the basis for the creation of a new racket, a racket to create monopolies. Deputy Dillon knows quite well that that is not so. If this were to create a racket, why did his Party, as a member of the Coalition, include it in the 1950 Bill? Were they thinking in terms of rackets and do they now think that we may be thinking in terms of rackets in relation to a section of a Bill which they fathered? It is stretching the imagination a little bit too far. It is stretching political dishonesty a little bit too far. It is about time Deputies over there took a serious view and tried to help improve legislation and to stop legislation which might be against the rights and privileges of the people. They should certainly not stop something which is designed to improve and protect the health of the people.
I cannot understand it. Deputies opposite profess to be able to lead this country, not only in the production of a health service, but out of every difficulty and to win back everything that belongs to it. By their attitude on this particular section they are proving that they are not fit to lead the smallest group in the smallest rural council.
The thing is that we do not want to lead a group representative of a vested interest that desires to proceed triumphantly on their own particular racket. I want to direct the attention of the House to a series of significant instances that have arisen in connection with the discussion on this Financial Resolution. Deputy Briscoe cannot get it out of his head that we are discussing Section 53 of the Bill. We are not. We are discussing a Financial Resolution. Section 53 of the Bill empowers the Minister to make a series of regulations for the control of certain materials which might become contaminated in course of user or trade and Section 53 conferson the Minister wide powers to prevent any harm accruing to the community as a result of such contamination.
The Financial Resolution does not do that. The Financial Resolution tells us how the Minister will go about it. The section gives him a wide variety of powers, to any one of which he may have recourse. The Financial Resolution tells us the power he is to avail of and how. Is it not an interesting thing that when we asked the Minister on Thursday night last to tell us how he proposed to implement Section 53 and what this Financial Resolution indicated as to his intentions he did not know? Those of us who are familiar with the procedure of the House saw him turn to his officials and ask for further and better particulars. To help him out of his difficulty, I asked him to read us his brief. I said that if he would give us the kind of particulars he himself was getting from his permanent officials that would probably clarify the whole matter. While he was going through his papers to get that material, Deputy Briscoe intervened and showed in a moment that he knew all about it. The Minister knew nothing about it and said: "You are being unreasonable in pressing me to give a whole lot of particulars about a Financial Resolution which I thought would pass automatically and I am not posted on it." Ultimately, he said: "I will read you my brief", and he implied, "If I had known there was to be a whole lot of discussion on this, I would have briefed myself and been in a position to answer". Note the difference. Deputy Briscoe knew all about it.
If the Deputy had read the explanatory note he would know all about it.
That is not what Deputy Briscoe knew.
It is.
Just as the proceedings were coming to a close, out of the oratorical bag that Deputy Briscoe was carrying there leaped a large cat and the proceedings concluded with the strident mewings of Deputy Briscoe'scat. Here is the cat, as reported in column 720 of the Official Debate. Remember, to-night it is the defenceless public who are in danger of disease or even death with this sword of Damocles hanging over their head who rush to the Minister for protection and, with paternal zeal, he casts his cloak around the suffering public to see that nothing happens them. Deputy Briscoe shakes his head in approbation, but he has forgotten the cat. Did Deputy Briscoe look at what he himself said, as reported in column 720?
I know what I said.
I will refresh the Deputy's memory:
"Mr. Dillon: I do not know what Deputy Briscoe is talking about. I am talking about furniture and other articles mentioned in this Resolution."
Deputy Briscoe did not say then: "All my constituents asked for this." He did not say: "Defenceless people from all over Ireland approached Deputies of our Party to seek protection from this menace." What he said is deeply significant:
"Mr. Briscoe: All the trades requested it."
So did the trade unions.
the picture was that a defenceless public standing in peril of their lives had a Young Lochinvar to come out of the West to stand between them and the peril. It is not that Deputy Briscoe is worrying about. Deputy Briscoe tells us he wants the Financial Resolution for the people who deal in these commodities.
All the trades want to be protected against using infected material.
It is the people who deal in it who want it; "the trades want it."
And the trade unions want it.
I will read what is reported. That is what the Deputy said, that all the trades wanted it.
So they did. What is wrong about it?
It took a lot of rooting to get that, not out of the Minister, but out of Deputy Briscoe. Remember, when the Resolution was brought in first the Minister did not know what it was about or what he wanted. But Deputy Briscoe knew.
Is this the Deputy's ignorance because he has not read the explanatory note to the Bill?
This is the fruit of years of experience on the part of the Deputy smelling out rats in this country.
You are a good judge of rats.
I never met a racketeer yet who was not actuated by disinterested solicitude for the downtrodden and the poor.
The Deputy should deal with the Financial Resolution.
Deputy Briscoe is perfectly right. The people who want this Money Resolution are the people who deal in these commodities and who do not want anyone else to deal in them. It is dishonest.
That is not true.
I know this tactic well. If you once can get a trade in this country subject to licence, it is only a matter of time until you have a restricted number of persons licensed to trade in it and everybody else becomes their agent. Rag-pickers are humble folk, but I have known rag-pickers not 100 miles from this House who began with nothing but a bag on their back and a capacity to collect rags and old iron and, because they lived in a free country, they built up a considerable business and became rich men.
That is very charitable. The Deputy pretends to be a greatChristian, but he is one of the most hurtful——
Deputy Briscoe should allow Deputy Dillon to make his speech.
I know what you mean.
I am saying deliberately——
It is the lowest of the low.
What do you expect?
Order, order!
Have I caught another cat by the tail? I do not know of anything improper or unbecoming in a person starting in humble circumstances and building himself up a decent business by his own exertions. What Deputy is in a position to point the finger of scorn at such a man as that? I hold him up to no ridicule. What I am saying is that the moment you establish a system whereunder an ordinary humble person in order to be allowed to trade at all must get a licence, you close the door on all but the privileged few.
Certain people are licensed to sell poison.
I am suggesting to the Minister that there is a perfectly simple method of providing all safeguards that the public health authorities want without any Financial Resolution at all. What is the reason for the imposition of a fee?
A person who sells tobacco has to have a licence.
Why should you put on a fee? The purpose of this is not to raise revenue. Is not that so? The case made by Deputy Briscoe, not by the Minister, is that this is merely implementing Section 53 to exclude contaminated material from the trade. The Deputy wants to ensure that any person who culpably introduces deleterious matter into a trade of this kind is prevented from the occasion of doing so thereafter and you say:"To that end we will provide that anyone engaging in this trade shall henceforward hold a licence and if he ceases to hold that licence for stated misconduct then he will not be allowed to trade at all."
Not allowed to trade in that material.
But why put on a fee?
Why charge a man 5/- for selling tobacco or cigarettes?
I do not know the answer. I think it is a revenue raising device.
It is not. It is for the purpose of control.
Would Deputy Briscoe please allow Deputy Dillon to proceed without interruption?
I think Deputy Briscoe is mistaken. I think the dog licence, the tobacco licence, the wine, beer and spirit licence were all devices in the earlier stages of ours and Great Britain's fiduciary history for raising revenue. That is the tradition. I know how it is being done to-day. If one wishes to introduce a regulation to-day the procedure in modern times is that the first requisition you receive from the Department of Finance is for the purpose of introducing some levy to meet the cost of administration of the proposed regulatory procedure. I myself have repeatedly resisted such proposals on the ground that I could not see why a person should not be allowed to ply his trade freely and if the Government wants to exercise a regulatory supervision of that man's business in the interests of everybody but the trader, the last person to be called upon to bear the burden of costs should be the trader.
I cannot prophesy how the rag-pickers' licence will be administered, but I ask the House to judge by previous experience. We passed a Fellmongers Bill. Fifteen years ago in this country there were hundreds of people dealing in sheep skins and the result of that competition for sheepskins was that the butcher who had asheepskin to sell could get one man to compete against another and he thereby got a better price for the sheepskin and he paid a better price for the sheep. The Fellmongers Bill was passed and the purpose of that Bill was to ensure that the Minister for Industry and Commerce could regulate the trade allowing the export only of what he thought compatible with the industrial life of the country and retaining what he thought should not go out. It was pointed out at the time that the only purpose was to get the material under control. What happened? How many fellmongers are in the country now? About half a dozen. And it is easier to become a member of the French Academy than it is to become a member of the fellmongers' association. I remember the time when any man who had an ass and cart could deal in hides. I remember fellows going around in spring cars to butchers' shops competing for a pile of hides. Then the system of licensing was introduced.
I remember when people could buy potatoes and export them where they liked.
I am not talking about exports. I am talking about dealing around the country. I am talking about men going around in spring cars to butchers' shops to buy hides. Then we introduced licensing and the persons who got the licences formed a Hide Improvement Society. Everybody thought that meant a society to improve hides, but in fact it turned out to be a society to improve hide merchants, and the next performance was that as a condition of getting a licence to buy hides one had to be a hide improvement member, but when one applied for admission to the charmed circle of the Hide Improvement Society one was told by the society that it had as much as it could do to improve the hide merchants already in it and they were unable to take in any more. To-day if one has a parcel of hides that one wants to sell to a tanner, can one just bring one's hides to the tanner and sell them? One cannot.
Surely we are not discussing hides.
No. We are talking about regulations and regulatory improvements. One has a parcel of hides and there is a tanner 20 yards away to whom one wants to sell those hides. First of all one must invoice the hides to a member of the Hide Improvement Society, 120 miles away, and the hides must sit on one's floor until one is told by the society that one may shift them up to the tanner. One invoices the hides to the fellow 120 miles away and he invoices them back to the tanner and then one puts them in a wheelbarrow and rolls them up to the tanner's yard.
How long will it be before we have a rag improvements society? We will all think it is something to improve rags but we will discover in time that it is not a society to improve rags but a society to improve rag merchants and any man who has a bag of rags and wants to sell them to a man who uses rags will have to communicate with a member of the Rag Improvements Society, and having invoiced them to that society and the society having invoiced them back to his nextdoor neighbour, he can then put them on a wheelbarrow and roll them round to the door and leave them in. There is an interesting question always in connection with these transactions. It is that the invoice from the hide proprietor or the rag proprietor to the member of the society goes up at first cost, and when the invoice comes back from the rag or hide improver to the manufacturer there is 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. added on. Is it any wonder they form societies for the improvement of hide and rag merchants?
That is nonsense.
It is not nonsense. It is the literal truth. I remember a time when a man who dealt in skins was a poor man. Does any Deputy representing rural Ireland deny that? There was a time in this country when the fellow who dealt in skins was looked on as a poor man. Are there any poor men dealing in skins now? Any mannow with the smell of a skin off him will be found in a Chrysler car.
The same as the small farmers.
Not humble people like the Minister and myself. Deputy Maguire has some knowledge of what I am speaking about.
It is obvious that the Deputy has not.
They are not poor men any longer. I do not disagree that they were hitherto regarded as poor men.
In the old days skin buyers used to be poor men. But the hide merchants are aristocrats and they became aristocrats because of the application for a licence.
All I want to provide is that, if it is necessary for the prevention of trafficking in deleterious material, those who deal in it shall do so by licence. I desire that the issue of the licence shall not be subject to any charge, that uniform conditions will be laid down and that any person whether he be rich or poor, high or low, who conforms with the conditions will be entitled to a licence as a rag dealer. If these points are conceded, I do not see any serious objection.
The Deputy would object to 5/- as a charge for a licence? You said you want no charge.
I learned a lot when I heard Deputy Dr. Browne speak of getting his toe in the door and, having got his toe in the door, of warming up his leg to keep the toe in. I have a feeling that if the rag improvement society got their 5/- toe in the door they might, when Deputy Briscoe and I were not watching, kick in the door and that the fee would reach such a level that no small man would venture to make the investment lest his enterprise should fail. What is the point of the 5/-? Why does the Deputy urge and press that there should be a charge levied in respect of these licences? That is all that is at issue.
I am not urging anything.
If it is free and accessible to everybody, so long as good conduct in the conduct of the trade is maintained, no one would quarrel very much with the arrangement in the circumstances—but why the fee?
Why do you charge a hawker a fee for a licence?
I think that, originally, it was a revenue matter. I think the Minister would tell the Deputy, if he asked him, that the proposal of the fee was inserted at the instance of the Department of Finance on the grounds that any administrative arrangement of this kind must have attached to it a revenue-producing proviso which will finance the cost.
Defray the cost.
If our experience led us to believe that it always stopped at that we might possibly consent. However, I have shown the House how this device has been taken up by vested interests and how, for their purposes, traders have gradually used the licence proviso as an instrument to ensure that a very few people will ultimately establish a monopoly.
Who would imagine, for instance, that feathers would constitute any very valuable asset? Yet, I should imagine that the feather trade of this country is worth an immense sum. There will be licences to deal in feathers. It is very strange and interesting—when you get to see these things from behind a ministerial table—to realise how rich an asset the monopoly of anything can become. Vespasian, an Emperor of Rome, was not too proud to establish a monopoly in public urinals and he grew richer. He has a lot of spiritual descendants. I know of vested interests in this country who got tariffs put on commodities because they knew the market was so small that it was just sufficient to provide relative riches for one and that the one entrenched would make it unprofitable for anyone else to venture in—and they are doing very nicely.
All I ask the Minister is to provide that licences will be issued to anybody who asks for them, free of cost; thatso long as they conduct the trade inoffensively they will not be interfered with and that the withdrawal of the licences will only be the penalty of deliberate misfeasance on the part of the licensee. If that is done, the greater part of my objection falls to the ground. To be quite honest, I can see that the Minister could imagine that he meets the case immediately by saying: "I will limit myself to 5/-" I do not think he does.
The Minister has indicated that he contemplates a fee not in excess of £2. If a case is made in five years' time— when we have all forgotten this—what will happen? If I ask Deputies in this House in five years' time: "What do you know about issuing licences to rag-pickers" they will not have the faintest notion from whence the power came. We would have forgotten about it. But the rag improvement society would not have forgotten. They would know—and they would take very good care to ensure that neither Deputy Dr. Maguire nor I would discover it without a good deal of search. If you asked one of them how the business of licences began they would close up like clams. The case might perhaps be made—not to this Minister but to his successors—that it was expedient to keep unreliable people out of the trade or to provide that, as there were too many people buying rags, everybody having a licence would be confirmed in it but that, for the next ten years, no more licences would be issued.
Surely the Deputy does not agree that 5/- will be adequate to keep undesirable people out of the business?
No, but do not forget what happens once you get your toe in the door. Deputy Dr. Browne has given us the headline as to how we should go on after that. They cannot put on any fee if they do not pass a Financial Resolution because they do not mean to bring the money into the Exchequer. If you pass a Financial Resolution for as little as a penny then, for any fee whether it be for a penny or for £1,000, there is a conduit pipe into the Treasury through which the money would pass. In five years' time, having kicked the doordown, they could then make a strong case to raise the fee. They might even come to the Minister and say: "Here is a method of increasing revenue". They are quite prepared to pay 200 guineas or 500 guineas if that means that they can get a monopoly. It is awfully hard, if people have a monopoly for rags, to get inside it. People will shrug their shoulders and say: "Who wants to buy rags?" I do not say that there is a monopoly in feathers, but, suppose I announced to the House that there is a monopoly in feathers, who would lose a night's sleep over it? Who, here, wants to deal with feathers? Who is interested in feathers? But have we not a duty to see that our legislation does not create a monopoly?
If we cannot achieve our purpose of the protection of the public health by a device that will not open the door that chink which will permit vested interests to kick it down, ought we not ask the Minister to provide the guarantee hereafter against the door's being kicked down by any monopolist? That is the case. Deputy Briscoe gets excited about this. Does he think that Fine Gael hope, in the coming by-elections, to be swept to victory on the tumultuous votes of the rag-pickers of the country? They are a very respectable body of people but if the whole tribe turned up in Wicklow or East Cork, unless the contest is much closer than I think it is going to be, I do not believe they could sway the result one way or the other. Is there any conceivable way in which the rag-pickers of this country, financially, electorally or otherwise are likely to affect the political destinies of any Party or any Deputy in this House? I do not think there is. If ever a case was made for a body of citizens who have no conceivable quid pro quoto offer in return for the advance of their interests, it is truly the rag-pickers.
I am not any more interested in rag-pickers than I am in fellmongers or any other body of people of this country. The principle I seek to defend is this. The ordinary people, however humble, have a right to earn their living in their own country without the permission of the rich or the strong. Ifa man is poor, hardworking, honest and efficient and can ply his trade in a manner consistent with the public welfare, he is just as much entitled to ply in his humble way as the largest monopolist conceivable.
I think that is a principle worth defending and one worth fighting for. I do not think it is a principle that is going to get votes for anybody who does support it but I suggest to the Minister that it would be a graceful gesture on his part—he is in the mood at present for making graceful gestures verbally and legislatively—to announce that he did not propose to levy any fee, and that the Financial Resolution could be dropped. If, at any future time, he found the powers of the section inadequate without the power to collect the fee he could come back to the Dáil on some other occasion.
We are indebted to Deputy Briscoe for the explanation we got concerning this Money Resolution. Like the previous speaker I am opposed to the system of issuing licences except where it is in the public interest and it cannot be argued that the issue of licences in a case like this would be in the public interest instead of being to the detriment of people who wish to engage in the various trades connected with the provision of furnishings.
Obviously if a system of licensing is introduced, power will then exist which will enable regulations to be made. Regulations, however stringent, can then be made which would have the effect of putting out of business small people without licences or the people who were not wanted in the trade. A system of regulations could be prepared in a manner which would make it in the long run a restrictive practice and would restrict the competition that might arise in connection with this rag and bone and feather trade.
We saw ourselves the abuses connected with licensing systems, particularly where the Fianna Fáil Party were concerned. May I remind them of the issue of cattle licences some 15 years ago? Everybody knows the scandalous rackets that arose in connection with the issue of those licences,so that it is no argument to say that there is no possibility of any abuses arising. We know that abuses did arise in connection with the issue of cattle licences and if it is proposed to introduce a system of licensing in this case abuses can also develop.
When the Minister referred to this matter he did not mention that the people who wished to engage in this trade could register instead of getting licences. Why not ask the people to register if they wish to engage in the trade? You would then know who was engaged in it. The argument was put up that the issue of licences would enable those people to be known, but if they are required to register in order to engage in this rag and bone business, as a feather merchant or as a merchant in regard to other types of filling which might be used in mattresses or other things which would be subject to the provisions of this measure, surely that should be sufficient. If he is merely required to register at least he brings himself to the notice of the authorities who might wish by reason of certain powers to interfere in the conduct of that man's business, but when a licence is issued to him it can be withdrawn and he can be put out of business. The real danger I see in it is the possibility when the licence is issued of introducing a set of regulations which will put all unwanted persons out of action and restrict the operations of those engaged in the trade.
Deputy Briscoe put up one argument here and said there was a clause of this nature in the 1950 Bill. However, he did not quote the section; neither did he indicate that the 1950 Bill was not acceptable to the inter-Party Government as it stood.
It was.
It was not.
It was approved when it was circulated.
But it certainly did not go through this House.
How could it be circulated if it was not approved?
It did not go through the House.
It would have been approved.
It would have been. That is a very neat way of arguing.
It would have been. Are the Deputies going to argue there was no responsibility for that Bill?
They did not know what went on.
That is a cock that will not crow.
Deputy Rooney on the Money Resolution.
That Bill never got further than the waste paper basket and it was possible in respect of certain classes that the Bill was not acceptable——
Not acceptable to whom?
That does not matter at the moment. It is not the 1950 Bill we are discussing.
It is the Financial Resolution to implement that. Withdraw your Financial Resolution and——
I will not withdraw it.
Deputy Rooney is in possession.
There is no use in Deputy Briscoe talking about the 1950 Bill. It was not acceptable to the inter-Party Government. If it was acceptable to the inter-Party Government it would have gone through this House. There were sufficient members to put it through. The Deputy knows very well the reception that Bill got from all concerned. I was very interested to hear from Deputy Briscoe that apparently a number of traders had discussed with him the desirability and probably the advantage of having a section like this in the Bill. It is obvious that that was the approach to this problem made by Deputy Briscoe. He certainly knew more about this section of the Bill than the Minister did, because when the Minister was questioned and asked what was the meaning of this section he merely told us that it was for the purpose of issuing licences.
He was not able to indicate either whether there would be a limit. No matter what the licence may cost, that is not the danger involved in this system of licensing. The danger is that advantage may be taken of the existence of a licensing system to introduce restrictive regulations and that is what makes this Financial Resolution unacceptable.
Some years prior to 1950, precautions such as those which the Minister seeks to implement by means of the Financial Resolution were suggested by the Public Health Committee of the Dublin Corporation. Some Deputies are worried at the prospect of having a system of licensing introduced. I am not particular about licensing as such nor as to what the licensing fee is to be but definitely there should be some control of the work mentioned in this Resolution and in Section 53.
Drop the Resolution, and we are all agreed.
I do not think you should drop the Resolution and in that connection I want to make a specific statement. Deputy Dillon may not be aware, as I and other members of the Public Health Committee of the Dublin Corporation are, that a racket worse than any licensing racket was in operation some time ago and is perhaps in operation to-day. I am sure the Deputy would be shocked to know that mattresses that were thrown on the Corporation tip heaps were recovered by certain individuals, sold to people engaged in mattress filling, enclosed in respectable covering and then sold to other unfortunate people as good mattresses—the worst possible carriers of disease without any disinfection whatever. It is quite obvious that if the precautions outlined in the section, which the Financial Resolution seeks to implement, are not taken that that same racket will still go on. Obviously where such vitally important materials as bedding and filling for mattresses are being handled, you must have supervision and the only way to get proper supervision is to have the premises in which the work is carried on registered.
I do not anticipate any racket in thislicensing system. I was very amused at Deputy Dillon's statements. He dealt with hides and skins and I was hoping he would go on to deal with dermatology, because the greater part of his remarks in regard to hides and skins had nothing to do with the Bill. However, I do not anticipate the racket that Deputy Dillon seems to fear. I do not see how any trader engaged in the business to-day, either manufacturer or distributor, would be interfered with as a result of having to take out a licence or having to have State-registered premises in some form or other. I know the provisions of the section and I know that there is a certain action which may be taken under the Public Health Act and Sanitary Acts, but the Minister has said that these provisions are necessary and I hold they are necessary. I was chairman of the Public Health Committee who in the first instance reported to the Minister before 1950 that this racket of mattress filling from material taken from the corporation tip-heaps constituted a menace to public health.
There is no difference between Deputy McCann and myself. I am quite prepared to say the only effective way of bringing filling material under control and avoiding contamination of mattresses is by registering and licensing premises. All I am asking is that it should not be by way of a licence in respect of which a fee is payable, but it should be by way of free licence.
What I am afraid of is that a proviso put in here by the Department of Finance, for the purpose of making the licensing issue procedure self-supporting from the point of view of the Exchequer, will ultimately be used by the technique known to Deputy Dr. Browne as putting your toe in the door for other purposes hereafter. Once you have got the conduit pipe of a Financial Resolution through which you can pass the proceeds of any licensing fee, the vested interests will deliberately urge on the Minister to increase the licensing fee to a point which consolidates them in the enjoyment of a monopoly and makes it virtually certain that there can be nonew entrant to the trade. For instance, the Deputy may know a rag and bone merchant in the city who may have two or three children helping him in the business. One of these children may want to set up on his own. All I want to provide is that if that one gets a store, puts it into proper condition and conducts his trade as well as his father conducted it, he will have the right to go to the Custom House and say: "Here is my name and here is the address of my premises. I want to register the premises and I want a licence to carry on the trade." I want to provide that once these premises have been taken, he will get his licence, that thence-forward he will be free to trade and that the only circumstances in which he can lose that licence will be, if he is convicted of misfeasance——
Namely?
——or by such gross negligence as would contaminate the material which he has on his premises, in violation of the rules laid down for everybody. I think I am making a most reasonable request to the Minister on behalf of a defenceless section of the community. I am quite certain that if the Minister were not in a somewhat irritated mood about this infernal Health Bill, he would waive this condition in regard to the payment of a fee and say: "We shall give the licence without charging any fee simply on being satisfied that the character of the applicant is satisfactory and that his premises conforms to all the requirements." That is all that is in it.
The division is of those who insist on a fee and those who are against it. Surely most rational Deputies will feel with me that where you are dealing with a body of people, large or small, but in a humble way of business, what might seem to you and me a very trivial sum as fee is something that should not be exacted from them unless there is very good reason for it, when you bear in mind the technique of Deputy Dr. Browne of getting your toe inside the door and the danger inherent therein——
Will the Deputy vote for the £1 fee later on?
We shall discuss that on another occasion and I shall be an interested witness of the Deputy's gyrations on that. I was going to end on a conciliatory note. I was going to say that if the Minister's own rag were not out, he would probably meet us on this matter. I suppose that when a man gets his rag out, reason is unseated and prejudice holds sway. Against such prejudice even the gods wage war in vain. As I do not aspire to be numbered amongst the gods, I reconcile myself to the fact that the task I have undertaken may be impossible. I can assure the Minister that if he would show a readiness to meet the views of other Deputies in so trivial a matter as this, the effect of oiling the wheels of progress would be out of all proportion to the concession made. Who is going to vote for the fee? We are all prepared to agree to the licence. There is nothing between us now but the fee and the half-open door which may be kicked down hereafter. I urge the Minister, without breaking his heart, to meet the view which would be good democratic practice in a deliberative Assembly not because he agrees with it himself but because he thinks he can operate the section without it. Such a concession would in no way abridge the proficiency with which the necessary regulations would be operated.
It seems that we are beginning to get some sort of unanimity on this Money Resolution. I am glad that the first submissions that were made, the objections to the actual inspection of premises and the safeguarding of public health in respect of flock and the different other materials that may be used for filling, have not been persisted in. It seems also that the operation of this particular type of business by licence is not objected to. There now only exists the small objection by Fine Gael on the question of the amount of the licence.
Of the fee. The levying of any fee.
I am glad that the first two objections have beenmet and that the Deputies seem reconciled to accept those two provisions.
What two provisions?
First, the provision that the premises may be inspected.
That has nothing to do with the Financial Resolution.
I think it has.
It deals exclusively with the levying of the fee.
Let me go back a bit. The first Fine Gael member who spoke here objected to any inspection of the premises at all.
No, he did not. I was the first Fine Gael Deputy to speak on this Resolution on Thursday.
Sorry, I meant to-night. I do not see anything unusual in the payment of a fee. As some Deputy pointed out, a hawker has got to pay a fee of 5/-. The man who wants to earn a few coppers by paying a fiddle or a kettledrum has got to get permission and pay some sort of a small fee, if my memory serves me right. Trade unions who want to operate as effectively as possible in this country have got to deposit £1,000.
Exactly. They do not want the multiplication of trade unions. That is the very thing.
An auctioneer who wants to operate must deposit something like £2,000.
Exactly. They do not want the multiplication of auctioneers.
I must pay a tribute both to the Minister and Deputy Dillon—to the Minister for looking into the future as he may be accused of by Deputy Dillon, and to Deputy Dillon who discovered that he is looking into the future. I cannot attribute any ulterior motive to the Minister with regard to the payment of a fee nor do I see there is anyintention on his part to create any type of monopoly whether in the rag trade or in the sawdust trade. The only question I would like the Minister to answer is this. Why is it necessary to have a second Money Resolution? My experience in this House has been that the one Money Resolution does for any Bill of this kind which requires a Money Resolution but in this particular case there are three different Money Resolutions. What the reason for that is I do not know.
The reason is simple. In the case of most of the other Bills money goes out from the Treasury. These Resolutions are to make the money flow in. That is why we have two. Deputy Corish strengthened the case I sought to make. The auctioneers have a fee and a deposit. Did Deputy Corish ever ask himself why? Did he ever try to become an auctioneer?
I accepted the reason given by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce.
I thought Deputy Corish was a very much more cunning and sophisticated Deputy than that. I know that the trade unions, when they fixed the fee at £1,000, were concerned merely to give an example of thrift and prudence but I wonder could it conceivably be true that the trade union movement desired to discourage the multiplication of trade unions? Once there was a good, well-organised union catering for an easily recognisable section of the unemployed population, they required to be deposited a fee which would discourage irresponsibles from forming alternative unions.
The trade unions did not ask for that at all.
No, but they did not protest.
They did.
If they did that they were very wise. With a trade union functioning efficiently for a recognised branch of working men it could becomea great evil if there were two unions catering for the same people started by every malcontent who took it into his head to do so. But suppose the rag-pickers began to operate this technique and succeeded in kicking in the door.
The Deputy has made that case half a dozen times and I cannot allow repetition.
May I point out to the House that Deputy Corish made an invaluable intervention when directing attention to the auctioneers and the trade unions and there are many others? There are solicitors. One cannot be apprenticed to a solicitor if you do not put down a substantial sum.
And the stock exchange.
And the stock exchange. In fact, it is surprising the number of disinterested bodies of people in this country who are only concerned about one thing and that is to maintain the high standard of conduct and ethics and who regulate that by the size of the entrance fee into the privileged body. I am grateful to Deputy Corish for giving point to the case I am making. May I depend on his assistance in pressing on the Minister to abandon this kind of Money Resolution which draws money into the Exchequer? While agreeing with Deputy McCann that a licensing system and a system of registered premises is acceptable to everybody——
If you have registered premises you must have some sort of fee.
Why?
Because there must be inspection, and where you have inspections there will be administrative charges of some sort. Where are you to get the revenue to meet them?
Has not Deputy Corry told us that there is an immense surplus of civil servants sucking their thumbs in the Custom House with nothing to do?
But this work would probably fall on the sanitary inspector.
Is it not so at the present time, that the sanitary inspector is charged with responsibility for inspecting other premises? Does he not inspect at the present time the premises of rag-pickers and of rag and bone merchants in the City of Dublin?
I think the Deputy is talking it out.
I think there is very little between us. I venture to say that if every Deputy spoke according to his true belief he would agree with me that the levy of a fee in connection with the issue of this licence is an unnecessary and an undesirable thing. By all means, let the public health authorities say that the supervision associated with the licensing of registered premises is the only means of avoiding evil. Let us have that, but why levy a fee? I suggest that the common-sense view for a democratic Minister to take is to say: "Take the fee away if you feel deeply about it." That is not going to alter the supervision of the premises.
Should he not say: "If you feel deeply about it, then I will drop the fee; let it go, and let all of us agree that there is appropriate machinery for carrying out the work of supervision"?
That was my attitude when I was on that side of the House. That was how I met the Opposition when that kind of thing arose here. I did that because I thought it was the right way to run Parliament. If the Minister were prepared to do that now, in dealing with this Bill, he would find that things would go much more smoothly. Otherwise, I think that most reasonable Deputies will agree that the conduct of parliamentary business is going to become extremely difficult.
What we are all really concerned about is the safeguarding of the public health. I fail to see how the charging of a fee for a licence is going to do that. I have had much the same experience as Deputy McCann. I have tried for nearly three years to check a practice that has been in operation in some places where these mattresses are dealt with. There is noproper supervision, and they are being dealt with in a most unhygienic way.
The point is that there were no registered premises.
The premises of rag and bone merchants are registered.
If these things can be manufactured and bolstered up in places that are not registered, then I suggest they should be registered. I know certain places were they could be made up in a proper manner, but they are not taken to them by the people I have in mind. I have seen those mattresses come from the most objectionable places. They are never taken to the recognised up-to-date mattress makers by these people, but are fixed up in holes and corners. These latter are the places that I want to see registered.
What I am at a loss to understand is how the charging of a fee is going to safeguard the public health. The charging of a fee of 5/- or 10/- is not going to safeguard what Deputy McCann has referred to. I agree with him that, from the health point of view, there is an urgent necessity for this thing to be done, but the charging of a fee is not going to accomplish it. I think it is a matter for the public health authority and for the inspector of factories to see that supervision is properly carried out.
If, as Deputy Hickey has pointed out, the object of this is to have premises inspected, surely registration ought to be sufficient. There is a big difference between registration and the issue of a licence. The issue of a licence gives powers which really are not needed when a person, in fact, only requires to register. It appears to be agreed now, though it was not at the beginning, that a nominal fee only would be charged. The Minister, in an offhand way, mentioned at first that it might not exceed £2. Suppose it comes down to 2/6 or 5/-, has the Minister seriously considered the argument that has been made by Deputy McCann, and would a fee of 2/6 or 5/- pay the cost of inspection which is normally carriedout by a sanitary inspector in the employment of the local authority? He is paid in connection with his normal work as a sanitary inspector, and would be required to visit these premises in any case. I do not believe that the Minister should ask for power to collect money from these people in the form of a fee. I think that if he required them to register it would be sufficient, and would fulfil the requirements which he considers are desirable in connection with this Bill.
I agree with the case made by Deputy Dillon and Deputy Hickey. I have full knowledge of the truth of the case that Deputy Dillon has made in connection with the hide society organisation and the fellmongers' association. I had occasion, when Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture, to bring deputations to him protesting against the activities of those gentlemen when they got in under a device such as is now proposed in this case. I agree about registration, but I do not agree with the charging of a fee. If the fee starts at 5/- what I feel is that it will go to £5 or maybe £50, and so will be sufficient to exclude the ordinary person to the benefit of a few select people.
In connection with this Resolution, what surprises me is that no provision is made to stop the sale of second hand clothing by regulation. The position at the present time is that infected clothing can be sold any day on a public market by hawkers. I think there should be some provision to stop that —that is if we are anxious, as we on this side of the House are, to safeguard the public health. We cannot agree, however, that it is necessary to charge a fee.
The only question at issue is the fee.
At the start this was a matter of no great importance. It was first enacted in 1911. The Flock Act was extended in 1947 to take in more than was provided for in the 1911 Act. It was then put in by the Coalition Government in the 1950 Bill. That Bill appeared in print and was circuated to the House. Deputy Dillon in his usual style tries to make out thathe was not responsible for it, or was any other Minister except Deputy Dr. Browne.
Who says that?
Nobody voted for it.
We are talking about the Financial Resolution.
It is the same thing.
It is not the same thing.
The very same clause was in it. It would have to be operated by a Financial Resolution.
Why?
To implement the clause, of course.
Have a bit of sense. There would be no Financial Resolution if there were no charge.
The section is the same.
But there is no fee.
I have had to go through a painful silence for two days, listening to Deputy Dillon talking the greatest rot, and he will not listen now. If he only knew the exercise of patience we have to make in listening to him, he would have a little pity on us—but he can never listen himself. The clause is the same and if the clause were to be implemented there would have to be a Financial Resolution. Deputy Dillon was in the Coalition Government; there was responsibility between all Ministers for what was passed, and if Deputy Dillon let this through at the time without examining it, he is himself responsible for approving it.
It was not approved.
Deputy Rooney said it was not approved. What did he mean by saying that? Surely it was approved by the Government? If not, it could not have appeared in the green print.
It is quite untrue that it could not have appeared.
I do not expect much intelligence from Deputy Rooney, but surely it is a fact that if the Bill comesout in a green sheet it must have been approved by the Government.
There was no provision in that Bill to charge a fee.
Deputy Dillon wants to get out on a technical point and wants to disclaim responsibility for Deputy Dr. Browne's Bill.
There was no provision to charge a fee.
It depends entirely on the phase of the moon.
I suppose so.
The Deputy is recovering. I am glad to see he bounces again.
Order! The Minister to conclude.
Anyway, when bringing in Resolutions like this it is very hard to have them discussed intelligently or in a fair manner, because Deputy Dillon has in his mind that there is a racket behind everything. There is an Irish proverb which translated means:—"The man who thinks like that is the man who would do it if he got the chance"—and nothing could be truer. On everything that comes in, Deputy Dillon points out the racket, he seizes on everything and examines every measure to see where there may be a possible racket. That is the type of mind we have to deal with all the time. We are not going to get any sort of intelligence in our discussions as long as that type of mind continues. Deputy Rooney, who follows in a clumsy way——
Tell us about the cattle licences.
What was wrong with the cattle licences? Cattle licences were issued by Fianna Fáil.
In a most odoriferous way.
On the basis of the cattle exports for the previous period.
Go bhfoirfidh Dia orainn!
Deputy Dillon fought for the British side, John Bull's side, and found fault with the cattle licences.
We are getting a bit away from the racket.
By talking about a racket in the cattle licences, Deputy Dillon was helping out Jimmy Thomas.
And Deputy Rooney was looking for licences.
Deputy Dillon started off talking about licences and came out with the anti-Semitic prejudice because Deputy Briscoe supported this.
He explained this for you.
On a point of order, is it orderly to refer to a Deputy as anti-Semitic?
Certainly. The Deputy referred to another as anti-Catholic.
Have words failed you, James?
I have not forgotten the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, who presides in the House, not the Red Pope.
The Red Nuncio, it is.
Yes, the Red Nuncio. Is it in order to refer to another Deputy as anti-Semitic?
It does not seem to be an insult.
What more gross insult could be offered to any Christian man? Do you mean to tell me that it is not an insult in Oireachtas Éireann to describe someone in that way?
One is entitled to describe things as they are.
Was it to Deputy Dillon he was referring?
Is it parliamentary to call someone anti-Semitic?
All the Chair can say is that it would be better if the statement were not made.
Is it parliamentary to make it? I invite the Minister, if he spoke in heat, to withdraw that calumniation. It is not true, he knows it is not true and it would be a gross offence to any decent Deputy to say it of him.
Deputy Briscoe would not say it.
Deputy Dillon can go back and examine his statement to-day and see if he did not offer by insinuation to insult Deputy Briscoe.
How do you mean?
That certain of his coreligionists started with bags on their backs.
I never said any such thing.
I know you did not, but you implied it all the time.
It is a monstrous thing to suggest.
You never said it in the Dáil.
In the realm of decency, anti-Semitism is perhaps the most revolting crime a person could be guilty of against humanity. In the name of decency, let us not bandy that charge from one to another here. If the Minister means it, all I can say is that he is mistaken and wrong. If he said it in the heat of the moment, I ask him to withdraw it now, and not to say of any colleague in the House that he is anti-Semitic. It is a vile allegation and I, of course, repudiate it with loathing.
Vile talk and an irresponsible act.
Shut up, you silly little——
Deputy Dillon started the last night about rackets and he veered around to-day, when he thought he had gone a bit too far, and ended up bypointing out that almost everybody here agreed with registration. I am quite sure that if he reads his speech of last Thursday night he will see that registration would have the objections he made that night, that we can put certain people out of business.
Read what I said.
Surely he will agree— Deputy Rooney will agree, if he can see the point—that if I as Minister register premises I must have some way of withdrawing that registration, as the Deputy pointed out when he got a bit more sense towards the end of the discussion, if there is misconduct, let us say. Therefore, I can do what Deputy Dillon said last Thursday night I would do, that is, operate a racket and put certain people out of business by saying they were guilty of misconduct. However, as the discussion went on, he became more reasonable and in the end had practically everyone in this House agreeing with him.
That is no small achievement.
If, as the Deputy says, I can put certain people I do not like out of business, surely I can do it through registration as well as through licensing. Surely it is all the same and I can do it either way. This is a Resolution to give me power to grant licences.
No, it is to charge a fee for licences.
This is exactly what was in the 1950 Bill, approved by Deputy Dillon when he was a Minister. It says here: "and may provide for the imposition of charges".
"May", but need not.
It is the same here.
This is doing it.
"In respect of the grant, retention or renewal of licences."
This Resolution is to charge for them.
This Resolution says also "may".
Why pass this Resolution if you do not intend to do it?
Because we do not draft a section like that unless we are going to see it through, and what would be the use of putting in that "may" in the Financial Resolution and then never put it into use?
You could always pass the Resolution if you were going to do it.
We are sick of may, must and shall.
Why charge the fee?
Would the Leas-Cheann Comhairle read the section?
Deputy Dillon started that talk about rackets and veered around until he got a good point, I admit, in the end, the point a sane person could argue, that it would be better not have the licence fee. If the Deputy had started like that, instead of telling us about rackets, I must say I could listen to him with sympathy—I am not saying I would agree with him —but I dislike this thing, that every time the Deputy gets up he lowers this House and lowers the country, by pointing out to everyone listening to him that there is nothing but dishonesty in the Civil Service, in the Government and amongst traders everywhere, except amongst a few shopkeepers in the West of Ireland. They are the only people in this country who are honest according to Deputy Dillon. Is it not better to drop all that sort of stuff the Deputy goes on with?
Drop the fee.
Let us try to argue these things out in a sensible way, instead of the basis of these accusations against people all over the country— dishonest traders, dishonest Ministers, dishonest civil servants, dishonest inspectors. Everybody in the country is dishonest, according to Deputy Dillon. Does he believe that?
And that was always his theme.
If you believe that, God help your mind. If you do not believe it, it is a shame for any Deputy to say it. One way or the other, all I can do is to have a little pity for the Deputy.
I should be much better consoled if you dropped the fee.
The Coalition Government had some reasons for agreeing to this section. That reason was that, in 1946, the Trade Union Congress passed a resolution asking that this matter be more closely dealt with or more carefully looked after. As a result, consultations were held—I am not sure whether it was in my time or in my predecessor's time—between officers of the Department and—let us see who were consulted—the bedding and upholstering manufacturers and representatives of the retail furnishing trade.
The Minister was about to say with whom the consultations were held.
They were held with the bedding and upholstering manufacturers and representatives of the retail furnishing trade after the Trade Union Congress had made its request. The Deputy now bows across the floor. Deputy Dillon thinks there is a racket in it. That is the kind of mind the Deputy has—we did not go further than the trade. God help the man who has that mind. The Department wrote to the medical officer of health in each of the cities, to the Federation of Irish Manufacturers, the Irish Furniture Manufacturers' Association, the Irish Waste Trade Association, the National Amalgamated Furnishing Trade Association, the Amalgamated Union of Upholsterers of Britain and Ireland, the Irish Trade Union Congress and the Congress of Irish Unions. Is there anybody else we should have written to that Deputy Dillon could suggest?
Yes, Deputy Dillon.
Deputy Dillon, perhaps. Everybody engaged in the trade,whether as manufacturers, distributors or workers, together with the medical officers of health, were all asked for their observations and there was general agreement that it should be done.
What about the rag pickers?
I read them out. We do not call them ragmen here. I mentioned the Waste Trade Association. What suggestions did they make?
Who is in the Waste Trade Association?
For goodness' sake, will you listen?
Who is in the Waste Trade Association?
You are not going to learn anything. but listen anyway.
Who is in it?
I do not know.
Exactly.
I suppose Deputy Dillon does, because he knows everything. They all agreed that there should be closer supervision in the trade; that there should be registration; that there should be inspection; that there should be control of these waste materials so that no manufactured article could leave the works unless it was guaranteed to contain clean materials. None of them, so far as I know, suggested a licence, so that Deputy Dillon who, with his lovely clean mind, accuses the trade of looking for a licence but nothing else is wrong. They looked for control of the business so that clean mattresses would be sent out but did not look for a licence. So far as they are concerned, they had not seen the possibility of a racket as clearly as Deputy Dillon sees it or as quickly as he saw it. He should advise these people where the rackets are to be found. These mattress manufacturers and waste trade people are too slow— Deputy Dillon could see miles ahead of them where a racket could be found.
They will not see it until they are right up against it and they would need Deputy Dillon to advise them where the racket is. He would be a good adviser for them because he can see it around a corner, as he always has seen it and, I suppose, always will.
When the Minister speaks of clean mattresses, I presume he means that the mattresses will be approved by the health authorities?
Yes. The idea is to make the regulations to deal with finished articles of upholstering, bedding, etc., bindings and covers to be dealt with also; standards of cleanliness to be prescribed and to regulate, if necessary—I do not know whether it will be necessary or not, but it appears to be proposed at any rate—the marking, branding or labelling of filling materials so that if anything is found wrong afterwards, they can be traced back to their source; and to provide that appropriate records be kept, and that the definition of "filling material" be widened to take in wood shavings, sawdust and straw.
Keep Deputy Dillon out of these mattresses.
That is what this simple Resolution is about. As Deputy Dillon rightly surmised, it appeared so inoffensive and so trivial, if you like, to me that I did not examine the brief very carefully. I thought that when the big Financial Resolution was taken, these things would go through automatically, and I was not as well briefed on this as I should be to enable me to stand the very severe cross-examination of Deputy Morrissey and Deputy Dillon, but I do not know why we should have spent hours on this Resolution.
Clutching at the straw.
It is a mere extension of what has been the law since 1911 and it is a repetition of what was approved of by the members of the Coalition Government. For that reason, I suppose, too, I did not think there would be any opposition, but I notice that most of the Coalition Ministers otherthan Deputy Dr. Browne, disclaim all responsibility for what was done by their colleagues during the time they were Ministers, even though we are told that there is collective responsibility as between the members of the Government under the Constitution.
If you will waive the fee, everything will be all right—and nobody asked for a fee.
Nobody asked for it. Is that not news to the Deputy?
Then drop it, and we are all ad idem.
Having spoken for an aggregate of two hours on this Resolution, pointing out the racket to these people, the Deputy now finds that they did not ask for it at all. Therefore, they agree with him, and is it not great to see them all agreeing with him?
Drop the fee and we are all agreed.
Financial Resolution put and declared carried.