When there is a serious attempt made to deal with a serious matter, we are told we are being obstructive. If you look at the Order of Business you will see who is doing the business.
I have pointed out the dangerously wide scope of the words "public sales" in sub-section (1). Sub-section (2), however, makes a specific prohibition on persons from holding public sales of greyhounds, save under licence. That simply means that unless a buyer can make immediate contact with a specific seller, an identified seller, or vice versa, nobody can sell a greyhound without a licence which the board can grant at its discretion. I have nothing against the board and I am sure this board will be appointed as others, and we have had very few complaints about the functions of these boards. But boards are not composed of omniscient beings who are able to keep complete balance and keep themselves completely free from prejudice. It means that whatever the mechanics of rearing greyhounds may be, nobody can sell a greyhound in Ireland except in the limited way which I have mentioned, with the permission and sanction of the board. I wonder if that is a useful provision.
I object on principle that here is a board which is entitled to say who can or who cannot sell greyhounds. I am dealing with the question of principle. It is gratifying to find that in the long history of boards in this country there has been very little to complain of, in a particular way which might be inferred from this. In principle it is open to the board to give a person permission to buy or sell and to refuse him permission. Thereby, by creating that situation there is the risk of creating a situation of fundamental injustice between individuals quite apart from the larger issue of removing free enterprise. In plain language, you are legislating for the possibility of favouritism or monopoly exercisable on behalf of such persons as the board in its discretion might select, to the detriment and exclusion of all other persons who might reasonably, profitably and equitably engage in that business. Is that not going very far? What is more, is it not going unnecessarily far? As I have said, we can all sympathise with the Minister and his officers in their efforts to get a workable scheme. Sometimes restrictions and constrictions are necessary and have to be adopted all too frequently. But is it necessary that you go to the extent to which you go in this section?
If it is not necessary, surely the principle of which the Minister so vocally professed himself to be the champion in previous years should rule in a case like that? Is it fair that the board should be in a position to create such an exclusive monopoly or monopolies to the exclusion, mark you, of other legitimate interests? Apart from what is fair, is it good for industry? I am not in a position to quote the Minister. If I misrepresent him, I shall be only too glad to withdraw, but I think I have heard the Minister argue that commerce should be as unrestricted as the situation will allow in order to flourish—that freedom fosters trade. Surely, in a case like this, it is freedom of negotiation and freedom of commerce that are needed to stimulate movement in this industry, to stimulate a trade which is alleged to be such an important one for our community from the economic and financial point of view?
That is a matter which I am not competent to judge. But if it is so, if this industry is of sufficient importance to merit such legislation or if it is of such economic importance to the community, should we not try to encourage it by giving it elbow room and by giving it freedom of negotiation, rather than have the wholesale policy of restriction which seems to be included in this Bill and particularly exemplified by this section under discussion now? These are the questions which I put to the Minister.
I think half the Minister's difficulty in this may stem from the words "public sales" and "discretion". Again, in all objectivity, I charge the Minister—or, rather, I charge the Government—with having allowed this Bill to come before this House without having provided the proper balances, which any homogeneous Government would provide, and without duly considering the various aspects involved in legislation of this nature. In particular, I would invite the Minister to consider in Section 38, sub-section (2), paragraph (a)—I hope I am sufficiently relevant to the section—in line 29 the word "public", the due qualification of that, and the qualification of the phrase "while the board at its discretion".
I am perfectly willing, and I think everybody on this side of the House is perfectly willing, to listen to the arguments that may be there for the necessity for regulating certain aspects of this industry and certain aspects in regard to sales. But I refuse to believe that everybody connected with it is so amoral as to require the sanctions, constrictions and restrictions and I might even say the persecutions, that can be provided for within the terms of this section. Like many other things, there may be need for a certain ordering, but I think it is wholly unnecessary to assume, for instance, that every auctioneer in this country is a crook. It seems to me that that is what this section assumes. It seems to be totally unnecessary to assume that. In fact, I think it would be a much better approach to these problems if we were to assume that reputable bodies of people in various categories, wherever they impinge, are not only reputable but that it should be assumed that bodies such as that can be given the guarantee of a certain freedom of action, and that these people, who know their business, are the very people whose help and assistance should be invoked towards securing the ordering of whatever of these matters may be necessary—in this instance the question of the public sales of greyhounds.
On this section I would ask the Minister this. Supposing in the course of argument the Minister convinces me —and, mark you, I will take a bit of convincing on this, and I am not to be taken in making this hypothetical concession for the sake of moving to the second part of my argument, as conceding my first point—but supposing that the Minister does convince me or could convince me that it is necessary that all sales, other than the direct specified negotiation sales of the sole type excluded from this Bill, as I conceive it, should be regulated, I would then put this to the Minister: what better way could you regulate those sales than to take the readily organised body, the professional bodies that you have available, the people whose business it is and whose vocation in the community it is to provide the interchange and the medium for buying and selling? Why not invoke these and provide that the auctioneers, the reputable and properly recognised auctioneers of the country, would discharge this function instead of providing a board—no matter how you look at it there is a certain compulsion on a board; no matter how free it is specified to be in legislation, there is a certain implication of service during the pleasure and so forth—instead of a board with power to appoint monopolies or power to appoint one person as a monopoly with all the evil that flows from that?
The Minister may say to me that this is a most unfair charge, that he has no intention of giving it over to one person as a monopoly. I am not making that charge. But I am making the charge that it is possible to do that under this section and that, in so far as inter alia it is possible in this section to do this, this section is bad and thoroughly bad.
On these arguments, taking Section 38, sub-section (2), paragraph (8), I make the specific request to the Minister to qualify, otherwise define, or modify two portions of that section: the words, "public sales" and the phrase "at its discretion".
