I attach a great deal of importance to the proposal which I have in 23 (c). I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that he is prepared to meet us from the point of view of considering some sort of appeal to a tribunal, but this is not exactly a question on all fours with the previous case, because we have to consider this in relation to the fact that there is a recognised business or occupation in this country, that of auctioneering, that the Dáil had cognisance of its existence by actually enacting a statute to regulate it. Therefore, it seems to me that it is fundamentally wrong, where we have a business subject to legal restriction, as the business is already, where the conditions for entering into the occupation are somewhat severe, that we should confer upon any board not under the control of this House the right to debar such members belonging to that occupation from carrying on. I am sorry I was a little bit confused there, but I think the House will recognise what I am trying to say.
We have got to take this offer in its proper perspective because paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 38 provides that the licences are to be granted by the board at its discretion. Therefore, we have this rather extraordinary situation likely to arise, that a person who complies with the requirements of the Auctioneers Act, makes the necessary deposit, has established himself in business, has a good reputation, may apply to this board to be permitted to carry on and may be permitted to engage in the business of conducting public sales of greyhounds or may be prohibited from doing so by the board at its absolute discretion. I think that position is not really tenable by the Minister. After all, the Minister is bound to take cognisance of the legislation of this House and he is bound to take cognisance of the rights of the citizens under the Constitution.
There is another aspect of this matter, and it is no petty matter. According to the report of the advisory committee, one may anticipate a very considerable business developing in the sale of greyhounds. It is true that the committee do not take, perhaps, the somewhat optimistic view of some of the witnesses who appeared before it who said that it was quite possible, if the abuses which had reduced the industry to the condition it was in at this date were remedied, that an export trade to Great Britain alone of the order of £2,000,000 per year might develop, with indeed some possibility of developing an export trade in greyhounds to America. Having regard to the prices which the Americans are prepared to pay for horses and also for greyhounds, it might be considered that an American trade might even be greater than the trade with Great Britain. In any event, there is a figure given there of £2,000,000 per year and as most of these greyhounds would probably be sold by auction to the highest bidder, because that would be the natural way of disposing of them if the auction sales were properly regulated and were conducted in proper form, the amount of fees involved would be of the order of 10 per cent. of that £2,000,000, say £200,000. That amount of business for qualified auctioneers is certainly involved in this matter and are we, having set up this board which will not be under the control of this House, which is not responsible in any way to this House and, as far as I can see, not responsible to the Minister, to allow this board to confine the opportunity of participating in that very large and substantial business to the favoured few? That is what I think we ought to take steps to ensure will not happen.
This is a monopoly. We are giving an uncontrolled monopoly to the board and we all know what happens in these circumstances. Your son, my son, my thirty-first cousin on the mother's side or his equivalent on the father's side so far as your relatives are concerned, is going to get a job. One or other of these relatives is engaged in the business of auctioneer and how could we do better for him, for us or for the country as a whole than by ensuring that he and his likes will be granted licences to hold public sales of greyhounds at their discretion. That uncontrolled monopoly, frankly, is what I am anxious to prevent and I cannot see any justification for trying to keep this provision, to create this nest of vested interests, as it will be created around the greyhound industry if we do not give every man who is legitimately in business as an auctioneer the right to apply for a licence and, if that licence is refused by the board at its discretion, to know why it was refused.
I do not agree with Deputy Finlay that the board could get round the requirement of the Legislature by adopting such a simple subterfuge as he has described for us. After all, so far as being informative is concerned, Deputy de Valera has already pointed out that we can make the communications of the board privileged and the board would be quite entitled to say to a rogue such as the Minister for Agriculture had in mind; "You are a rogue. In our opinion, you are a rogue. We have some evidence to show that you are a rogue". They need not necessarily say that and, if they do say it, and send that answer to his application to the dishonest man by registered post, there will not be any publication except to himself. I understand that in certain circumstances that might constitute a libel, but I doubt if the dishonest man who is told he is a rogue will take an appeal to the Circuit Court. I think he will accept the decision of the board in rejecting his application.
I could see other reasons for refusing which would not convey such a reflection upon the character of the applicant as that. One could quite simply say: "You have not had any experience in the selling of animals, particularly of selling greyhounds." That might be true or it might be untrue, but it certainly would not be regarded, I think, as a libel and would not give the person who was informed that, in the opinion of the board, he had not had sufficient experience in the auctioning of animals ground for an action for libel against the individual members of the board. I suppose he could not take the action against the board. But, it would give the person to whom the board conveyed this information the right, if he so desired, if he was prepared to face the expense, to bring the board into court to show to the satisfaction of the judge that the statement that he had not had sufficient experience was well-founded.
Having regard to the very substantial business which is involved here, having regard to the fact that the board is not under the control of the House, having regard to the fact that the business of an auctioneer is a business which has been made the subject of legislation by this House and that persons have a right to practise and engage in selling everything else, have still at the moment the right to sell greyhounds, if they happen to be auctioneers, I do not think there is any justification for giving the board the right to prohibit a person from engaging in that occupation, unless they state the reason why they consider he should be prohibited.
That is what we are asking in amendment No. 23 (b). I think it is perfectly reasonable to hope that the Minister will have regard to considerations which have been put before him by Deputy de Valera, Deputy O'Malley and myself and I trust that he will see his way not merely to meet us in regard to amendment No. 23 (c) but that he will see his way to impose on the board the obligation, when they reject an application for a licence, to tell the applicant why they have turned him down.
