Livestock Marts Bill, 1967: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

In line 15 to delete "or otherwise."

—(Deputy Clinton).

An Ceann Comhairle

Does Deputy O'Higgins agree that amendment No. 3a might relevantly be discussed with amendment No. 1?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

We are discussing the question of the deletion of the words "or otherwise." Is amendment No. 3a No. 3 on the white list?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Amendment No. 3a might not be necessary if the Minister accepted amendment No. 1.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am asking has the Deputy considered that we might discuss them together.

Mr. Corish

The list of amendments I have is headed: "This sheet of amendments is in substitution for the sheet of amendments circulated on 5th July, 1967." There is no mention of amendment No. 3a.

Yesterday afternoon. The Minister made two points which I think broke new ground in the discussion on this amendment, and which I think should be considered by the House. In the course of his interventions, he suggested that there was going to be some kind of procedure for people who wished to get a licence under this Act, sounding out the ground, and in rebutting the case made by Deputy Dillon that a situation might arise where there was an actual physical cattle mart or livestock mart, constructed and established as such, and that particular place had not secured a licence. The Minister seemed to feel it would be rash for anyone to undertake the expense and go to the trouble of constructing or adapting that place without making inquiries to find out whether a licence would be granted. That is an important point because it does not seem to me to be covered later in the amendments proposed by the Minister.

The other important point which broke new ground was the Minister's statement, which seemed to me to be quite unambiguous and categorical, that existing marts would get a licence. I do not want to stray into later sections or later amendments but this arises on these words "or otherwise". It seems to me that the Minister is correct so far as matters stand at the moment, provided only that the existing marts comply with the regulations which the Minister is going to make under this Bill when it becomes an Act.

The reason I think these two matters mentioned by the Minister are important is that if this definition section can be regarded as having no application whatever to existing livestock marts, then the Minister should have no hesitation whatever in accepting Deputy Clinton's amendment. Secondly, the Minister should himself, or if he does not, some other Deputy should, put down a further amendment to the section making it clear that the intention is that this Bill in this section will not apply at all to existing marts.

That of course could be done by tying it up with the definition here that it should apply only to premises so adapted after the passing of this Act. What is suggested in the amendment is that the words "or otherwise" which the Minister uses in the definition section are too wide, that they will capture transactions which it is not the intention of the Minister or the Legislature to capture. I have tried to make this argument to the Minister. I do not think I have yet succeeded in convincing him so I shall put it to him like this: If I say to the Minister: "I hope you are well," nobody will be in any doubt what I mean—that I am wishing him well, good health, prosperity and so on. If I say to him: "I hope you are otherwise than well," then again there will be no great doubt as to what I mean—that I am not wishing the Minister well, indeed that I might be wishing him the kind of luck that I would not wish on myself——

Mr. Corish

What would the Deputy mean if he said: "You are not well?"

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Supposing I say: "I hope you are well or otherwise", would the Minister or anybody else then be able to know what I was wishing him—that I hoped he was well or otherwise? That is what the Minister is asking us to do in this definition section. He is bringing in a Bill the first section of which is intended to define what the business of a livestock mart is and he starts off with a double-barrelled definition by saying that the business of a livestock mart means the business of selling livestock by auction. That is quite straightforward, very easy to understand—that the business of a livestock mart means the business of selling livestock by auction. Nobody has complained about that portion of the definition. But the Minister continues as a further definition, so to speak, as an alternative:

or providing, for the holding of sales of livestock by auction...

The first portion was the business of selling livestock by auction. The next part states:

or providing, for the holding of sales of livestock by auction or otherwise, a place adapted for the sale of livestock by auction;

That means otherwise than by auction —any method, private sale or anything else. As I understood his contribution here, the Minister attached very great importance to the fact that the word "business" is the first word used in that definition. I do not think I am misquoting or misinterpreting him in any way when I say he invited the House to draw from the fact that the word "business" is the first word here the inference that once the word "business" was used, something more than one isolated transaction would have to be involved—that it would have to be a course of conduct which amounted in all to a business being carried on.

It is vitally important the Minister should realise that here we are not dealing with the word "business" in the ordinary sense at all, that the phrase "business of a livestock mart" is creating an artificial definition of a livestock mart and indeed that the entire phrase "business of a livestock mart" is in inverted commas in the definition section. The Minister may possibly have overlooked that fact but it is a fact of central importance in discussing this section and more especially the amendment before the House.

I could agree with the Minister's argument if we were using the word "business" in the ordinary sense in which we use it, for example, in the phrase "business, trade or profession". If we were using the word in that sense, I think I would agree with the Minister that the danger of isolated transactions being captured when in fact there was no genuine livestock mart being run or operated—the danger suggested by Deputy Clinton and others—would be possibly so small as to be ruled out of consideration for practical purposes.

However, that is not so when we are creating in this section an artificial definition. If the Minister follows me in this argument—I am sure he is very alert despite his appearance: when I refer to his appearance, I am not referring to his physical appearance but his present relaxed position—I think he will agree that at least there is danger that a place can accidentally come within this definition, that a place can be adapted for temporary purposes for use for one business and we find it has become accidentally adapted for the sale of livestock by auction.

I am particularly concerned about a case where you might have a man dealing with his own livestock, where he wants to sell the livestock privately to a customer who is his neighbour. It seems to me that if the place wherein that sale takes place is a place which by this definition has become a place adapted for the sale of livestock, regardless of the fact that the sale has not been conducted by auction, that man is captured.

Mr. Booth

If they have not, they are outside the section.

Mr. Clinton

We do not know anything that is in this Bill.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

All we know is that they have been adapted.

Mr. Booth

They have been adapted for selling.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Very well; they have been adapted for the sale of livestock by auction. At present all we know is that the premises have been adapted.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Mr. Clinton

I am not surprised Deputy Booth is confused by this definition.

Mr. Booth

I was not aware I was confused.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): We are.

Mr. Clinton

His confusion is no reflection on his intelligence because he is not alone in his confusion; people much more familiar with what takes place in marts throughout the country are very confused. Deputy Cunningham is also confused and both he and Deputy Booth have tried their hand at redrafting this definition section and have failed in their endeavour. In his effort to redraft it, Deputy Booth, peculiarly enough, arrived at the same position as the Minister did on his first attempt when he put "or otherwise" at the end of the paragraph. Over the past few days, I hope the Minister has had an opportunity of reconsidering his attitude to this amendment and I hope he is prepared today to come in with a proposal to redraft this definition section and remove from it its present vagueness and uncertainty, a vagueness and uncertainty which are recognised by everyone, and place beyond doubt all types of sales which may take place and which are not caught in this definition, because that is the fear we have and that is the reason why we are sticking by this amendment; we feel the ordinary sale which a person should be entitled to transact without control, without leave, licence or anything else from the Minister or anybody else, will in fact be caught by this vague "or otherwise". "Or otherwise", in my view, covers every type of sale other than an auction sale.

Mr. Booth

No sale will be caught at all under the second part of this definition.

Mr. Clinton

The Minister himself has said that it is dependent on the word "adapted" and we have yet to get the Minister's version of what that means. Like everything else in the Bill, it is entirely dependent on what meaning the Minister ascribes to the word at any particular time, on his attitude or temper on a particular occasion, because this whole Bill is based on political control. Indeed, I find it very difficult to discuss amendments to the Bill because I personally believe it is an abominable piece of legislation. It should never have been introduced. If the Minister insists on bringing in this unwarranted and objectionable piece of legislation, then we have the right to insist that in every line the provision be spelled out clearly so that people will know when they are acting within the law and when they are acting outside the law. That is certainly not clear in this. I hope we will get a redraft of this paragraph which will indicate what is permissible and what is not. So long as the words "or otherwise" remain in this subsection nobody can possibly understand what the section means.

At least half a dozen people have tried to redraft this in order to make it comprehensive. Not only do I not know what it means but the IAOS and the Cork Marts people do not know what it means. I know these people have asked the Minister what he means by "or otherwise". They are confused and disturbed and quite uncertain and it is only reasonable for us to come in here with an amendment asking for the removal of the words "or otherwise" or for a redraft of the subsection in order to enable people to know quite clearly what is in the Minister's mind. The Minister tells us what he has in mind. He tells us what his intentions are but he refuses to reconstruct this in such manner as to make it clearly understood by everybody.

What the Minister has in mind in regard to a livestock mart, which we all know is an established mart or will become an established mart—that is, an enclosed compound with the accommodation necessary to carry on the business of a livestock mart—in relation to which a co-operative association or private enterprise come along to establish such a business, he will not allow anyone to sell either by auction or by any other means—as he said himself, by hand or by foot— a single beast unless they have a licence. I believe that is what is in his mind. But that is not what is stated here and I could not care less what is in the Minister's mind because I have had experience before of what was in the Minister's mind and subsequently, when the matter came to be tested, no regard whatever was had to the Minister's intentions.

This is a very important amendment, much more important than some people seem to think. I would ask the Minister to give very serious consideration to this before he insists on putting it to a vote and pushes through this vague, uncertain and most peculiar piece of drafting.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Does the Minister appreciate the importance of what Deputy Clinton has said with regard to the Minister's mind on this? I accept fully from the Minister that when he says: "I intend this to mean such and such" and "I do not intend such and such to be covered" that is his intention. Our difficulty is that it does not rest with the Minister or with Deputy Clinton or with the House to interpret afterwards the actual meaning of the words used. All that matters, so far as the court is concerned, is the words used in the section. I do not think the courts could even have regard to the strongest possible declaration of intent the Minister might make. If the Minister appreciates that point which was made by Deputy Clinton, would he not come with us this far, in any event, that he would agree that, instead of using a general phrase such as "or otherwise", he would at least try to set out in black and white in this definition what he intends should be covered by the phrase "or otherwise"?

Mr. Dillon

There is a point which I think the Minister does not appreciate. It simply is not true to say that the whole process of this Bill is based on the fact that, for the time being, he happens to be Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. In the definition section, it does not matter a fiddle-de-dee who is Minister. The definition section is the section to which the judge trying a case looks to determine whether or not an offence has been constituted. If a man is charged that he has allowed a third party to sell a beast by hand in his yard which had been adapted for sale of livestock by auction, then the judge administering this Bill, when enacted, must say: "The sale of that beast is covered by the words `or otherwise'." If the defence is introduced "But the place never was licensed; it never became a livestock mart; how can you call that selling of a cow in my yard, that never got a licence, the business of a livestock mart?" The judge would say: "All I can tell you is that that is what the Act says." It says: "If a beast is sold by auction or otherwise on a premises which has been adapted for the sale of livestock by auction"—licensed or unlicensed, that is the business of a livestock mart.

Now, the Minister says he believes, on looking at this draftsman's draft, that that gives effect to what he really wishes to achieve. I do not believe it does. The interesting thing is that Deputy Cunningham, who is trying to lend a hand to the Minister, in the course of an earlier stage of this debate, while Deputy Clinton was speaking, interjected—as he thought, helpfully—in relation to the kind of transaction which I have just described: "That is covered". The Minister squirmed in his seat and tried to shush Deputy Cunningham. The truth is that Deputy Cunningham was right, but I do not believe that the Minister means to do that.

What the Minister means is that if a premises is adapted for the sale of livestock by auction and, as a result of having got a licence from him, is habitually used for the sale of livestock by auction, then the fact that you allege that a beast sold there is sold by hand and not by auction will not inhibit the description of the activity as the business of a livestock mart. In respect of almost every other section, the interpretation and the operation of the Bill, if it ever becomes an Act, is a matter largely for the Minister for Agriculture for the time being but the one thing over which he exercises no control, after this Bill leaves the Oireachtas, is the definition section. It is the only section he cannot change by regulation, because if he tries to change the definition section by regulation, he could change the whole substance of the Bill. If he did that, then I believe the courts would intervene to say: "That regulation which you have sought to make is ultra vires because it would effectively and radically alter the whole nature of the statute under which you purport to make the regulation.”

I recognise perfectly well, as any one of us who has had ministerial responsibility recognises, the problems of drafting. I have argued time and again with the draftsmen why it was necessary to put 15 lines in a Bill to say something which it appeared to me could be said in one sentence. He could bring me in a file a foot thick to show me precedents in interpretations by the courts which made it necessary to provide 15 lines of print, in order to say in the language which the established precedents would permit, a simple proposition that I wanted to lay down.

Deputies may ask why is the Minister so stubborn about it, why is he so married to this interpretation. The simple reason is that this error has crept into the interpretation clause because the Bill was drafted precipitately, and instead of saying to the persons responsible for getting this Bill drafted: "Here is what I want done in the ordinary language of an ordinary man and it is for you to sit down with the draftsman and see that the appropriate drafting language is employed to get what I want done", he simply said: "Here are the things we want done and I want the Bill within a certain fixed limit of time." I have not the slightest doubt that the draftsman and everybody else did their level best to give effect to what the Minister had in mind but it does not matter who the Minister is, that is often an extremely difficult thing to do.

I want to re-affirm again most emphatically that I have no interest in improving the Bill, because it is a rotten Bill, but the rotten thing about the argument now proceeding is that I believe there is a way of saying effectively what the Minister wants to say but he has just got into a state of mind in discussing this Bill, and in his preparation of it, that he cannot entertain the acceptance of any amendment. He believes that any amendment is a personal attack upon himself. I agree that in those circumstances debate may appear to many to be largely a waste of time but I am getting £1,500 a year to represent my constituents in this House, and it may well be a waste of my valuable time to be pressing their essential interests on the House where there is a clear majority of the Fianna Fáil Party, who, with the exception of Deputy Andrews, are absent and who will walk into whatever lobby they are told to walk into when the division bells ring, as they will ring. However, that is what the House is for, for the purpose of argument and discussion.

Hundreds of times in matters of drafting of this kind, I have heard a Minister say that he was inclined to agree with the Opposition, and to leave the matter over to the Report Stage and to put down their amendment again, and that he would bring in his amendment and we would see if we could find common ground to give effect to the matter. To tell the truth, I see that Deputy M.J. O'Higgins has an amendment later on which I am almost afraid will be accepted because if it is, it will improve the definition clause and I do not want to improve it, but because of my association with the Department, I cannot resist throwing out the suggestion in regard to how it might be improved. That is the weakness of sentimentality, and I suppose it is not a serious flaw in my character, but in truth, Deputy O'Higgins's later amendment would give effect to the matter, provided these words "or otherwise" are taken out.

Indeed, why the Minister does not do it is a mystery to me, except perhaps for the simple reason that the Minister has gone berserk. He has said that he is not going to argue any more and how any Minister can come in and say: "I am not going to discuss it any more because I do not believe it serves any useful function to discuss it in Dáil Éireann" is a complete mystery to me. The only interpretation I can put on it is that the man has gone berserk. It is going to be a long, hot summer and I suppose we will have to live through it and get the work done by definition——

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Or otherwise.

Mr. Dillon

The work will be done if we sit here until Christmas and the fact that the Minister goes berserk will not prevent that, but it would be easier for everyone if the work were to be done rationally by a deliberative assembly which so far as I know this Dáil prides itself on being. I want to underline heavily the Minister's statement that he is not going to argue any more on the amendments submitted to this Bill because he believes they are personally directed against himself. Any responsible Minister of State who can say that in this House has gone berserk and it is a matter greatly to be deplored that a Minister should allow sentiment so to dominate his intellect. The Minister is not a fool. He is, at the moment, allowing his misguided heart to control what I am afraid is now an unstable head.

Mr. Clinton

Until the Minister made his last short contribution, I genuinely believed that he intended this definition section to mean something that I have already stated it should mean but did not clearly state, that is, that a livestock mart was a place that was actively carrying on the business of buying and selling livestock and was constructed or reconstructed in such a way that it was suitable for that purpose, that it had all the necessary accommodation and all the requirements that any Minister would normally look for if such place was to be licensed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate that this has been said time and again.

Mr. Clinton

I am leading up to something.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is repeating himself.

Mr. Clinton

I am not repeating myself. The Minister said he told the draftsmen what he wanted. He has said, not once but twice or three times, that he himself told the draftsmen what he wanted and that, without any legal assistance, he was able to be satisfied that this whole thing was clear, that this was, in fact, what he wanted. But he did not tell the House what he wanted. That is the great deficiency here. He has not told anybody what he wanted, but it is quite clear to all of us what he wants.

The Minister wants limitless power in this whole Bill and he knows that if he does not get in the definition section a limitless definition he cannot carry this through the entire Bill. That is one thing that has become clear and obvious from the Minister's last statement. Perhaps it should have been clear earlier on when he stated, more than once, that he got what he wanted. But he has still to tell the House what he wants. I am satisfied now that what he wants is limitless and uncontrollable control of this whole business of buying and selling livestock by whatever means that may occur in the country and wherever it may occur.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

While I sympathise with Deputy Dillon's point of view that this Bill is so abhorrent to him that he would feel it would be a mistake even to try to improve it, the position is that, once this House by a majority vote has accepted the principle of the Bill on Second Reading, whatever we can do to improve it and to make it into an instrument which will be more acceptable to, even if not fully acceptable to, the interests concerned, the more of that we can do the better.

I should like to explain this. When I mention I accept it from the Minister that he felt in this definition he had got what he wanted, that he knew how he intended operating the Bill, I did not mean to imply by that that the Minister could put his own interpretation on the words used in the definition section. Clearly, if this thing is to be interpreted, that is a matter for the court, if anyone brings it to the court. But if we assume the situation that it is not brought to the court and this definition as it stands is passed by the House, then I accept that as far as the present Minister is concerned he knows what he means by the particular words used.

But suppose there is a change of Minister in the morning? Suppose there is a change of Government in the morning? Can the Minister give this House any assurance, looking at the matter from the point of view not of a change in the wording of the Bill but of a change of personnel, of a change of the occupant of the position now occupied by the Minister, that this Bill could not be operated in a completely different way from what the Minister has in mind and from what the Minister intends? Surely the Minister sees that that, even from his own point of view, is the danger of allowing this kind of all-embracing, comprehensive phrase, such as the words "or otherwise" used here, to be left in the definition section.

(South Tipperary): To me it is imperative that we clearly define what we mean by livestock marts and that we limit the application as much as possible. In so far as we believe there are so many abominable sections to this Bill later on, it is imperative that we should limit the application of these sections to a clearly defined entity. We all know what a mart is. Even Deputy Booth, sequestrated as he is in Dublin, has occasionally gone outside——

I am just reminding the Deputy of something which he and Deputy Hogan know perfectly well.

No, I did not say any of these things, but let the Deputy make his own speech.

Mr. Dillon

That is what fascinates me. When the sheep came back from this indoctrination, they did not think they had said: "Four feet good, two feet bad". What they thought they had been saying was: "Four feet good, two feet better". The fascinating thing is that I think Fianna Fáil Deputies have that strange capacity. Deputy Cunningham put in his oar to help his Minister and the Minister bit him. The Deputy then said: "I never said any such thing; I swear I never said it". Then he floated away and I have great sympathy with him because he has to live with the Minister in East Donegal.

I think Deputy Booth was swayed by the Minister's protestation that the definition which we seek to amend by deleting the words "or otherwise" did not go beyond what was essential for the Minister if he were effectively to enforce the Bill, but they have that extraordinary capacity that they will cheerfully say: "That is my view" and then they will listen and they will find that is not the line. Then they do not have the slightest difficulty in saying: "I never said it." I have not come to the Official Report yet, but this is Tuesday and on Thursday—I trust Deputy Booth's honour that he will not go down and change it—I shall get the Official Report when it is circulated and I shall bring it in here on Thursday morning and read it out and I think he will find that he took the view that these words were essential.

This is the fascinating section that the Minister solemnly swore he would not discuss any further, but eventually he intervenes and says: "Look here." He says this to us, whom he denounced for vicious and destructive obstruction. I ask Deputies to listen and say if this is a fair summary of what the Minister said. Has he not said in the last five minutes: "Of course, you are right. The words `or otherwise' make the scope of the definition section much too wide, but I have provided the exemption section"? Is that a fair summary of what the Minister said?

Mr. Blaney

Slightly exaggerated.

The Minister will find that when we come to discuss the exemption section, section 4 of this Bill, there will be a great deal of objection towards allowing that section to remain unaltered, towards allowing only the Minister to decide to what extent this Bill will operate in respect of particular places. Consequently, when you come to consider a matter, you have to decide, if you like, on the balance of hardship as between a person who is accidentally caught under the definition section on the one hand and allowing section 4 with its very wide and sweeping powers to remain unaltered in the Bill on the other. It seems to me that while the Minister's intervention was helpful in directing the attention of Deputies to the necessity of reading the exemption section with the matter under discussion, nevertheless he would be much more helpful to Deputies wer he to try to list for us the particular evasions which he thinks can occur if he is not given the all-embracing definition that he now seeks.

I do not believe that it would be beyond the ingenuity either of the draftsmen or of Deputies to work out a definition which would exclude those not intended to be included in it and which would embrace the types of evasions or abuses the Minister obviously thinks could exist if he does not get the all-embracing definition he is asking for.

The Minister is not looking at this with his eyes closed. He has informed us already that be told the draftsmen what he wanted and he got back from them a definition which gave him what he wanted. Indeed, he mentioned some time ago that he had a particular form of transaction in mind, "sales by hand". If there are any others, and the Minister will tell us about them, we can see whether we can find words to cover them. We can suggest amendments to the Minister which he might consider. I am not entirely sure that I understand piecisely what the Minister means when he refers to "sales by hand".

It would be helpful if the Mmister would give us a description of that operation and if be would tell us that that operation is the only one which he feels it is necessary to cover. Then, having got the description from the Mmister, we could sit down and see if we could work out a definition in as tidy and neat a manner as possible and insert that into the Bill instead of the phrase "or otherwise".

Mr. Blaney

... unless it shall appear to the Ceann Comhairle that such a motion is an infringement of the rights of a minority, or that the question has not been adequately discussed, or that the motion is otherwise an abuse of these Standing Orders, the question, "That the question be now put", shall be put forthwith, and decided without amendment or debate.

An Ceann Comhairle

There can be no question of the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle on the matter of the question be now put. I am ruling that the acceptance of the motion by the Ceann Comhairle is justified by the lengthy discussion which has taken place on the amendment before the House.

Question put: "That the question be now put."

The Committee divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 43.

Tá

Allen, Lorcan.
Andrews, David.
Blaney, Neil T.
Boland, Kevin.
Booth, Lionel.
Boylan, Terence.
Brady, Philip.
Brennan, Joseph.
Brennan, Paudge.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Ben.
Browne, Patrick.
Burke, Patrick J.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carter, Frank.
Carty, Michael.
Childers, Erskine.
Clohessy, Patrick.
Colley, George.
Corry, Martin J.
Crinion, Brendan.
Cronin, Jerry.
Cunningham, Liam.
Davern, Don.
de Valera, Vivion.
McEltistrim, Thomas.
Meaney, Tom.
Millar, Anthony G.
Molloy, Robert.
Mooney, Patrick.
Moore, Seán.
Moran, Michael.
Dowling, Joe.
Egan, Nicholas.
Fahey, John.
Fanning, John.
Faulkner, Padraig.
Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Dublin Souih-Central).
Flanagan. Seán.
Foley, Desmond.
Gallagher, James.
Geoghegan, John.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Gogan, Richard P.
Haughey, Charles.
Hilliard, Michael.
Kenneally, William.
Kennedy, James J.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lalor, Patrick J.
Lemass, Noel T.
Lemass, Seán.
Lenihan, Brian.
Lenihan, Patrick.
Lynch, Celia.
Lynch, John.
Nolan, Thomas.
Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
O'Connor, Timothy.
O'Leary, John.
O'Malley, Donogh.
Smith, Patrick.

Níl

Barry, Richard.
Belton, Luke.
Belton, Paddy.
Burke, Joan T.
Burton, Philip.
Clinton, Mark A.
Connor, Patrick.
Coogan, Fintan.
Corish, Brendan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Costello, Declan.
Creed, Donal,
Crotty, Patrick J.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Henry P.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Donegaa, Patrick S.
Donnellan, John.
Dunne, Thomas.
Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
Farrelly, Denis.
Fitzpatrick, Thomas. J.
FIanagan, Oliver J.
Gilhawley, Eugene.
Governey, Desmond.
Harte, Patrick D.
Hogan, Patrick. (South Tipperary),
Jones, Denis F.
Kenny, Henry.
Kyne, Thomas A.
Larkin, Denis.
L'Estrange, Gerald.
Lindsay, Patrick J.
Lyons, Michael D.
O'Donnell, Tom.
O'Hara, Thomas.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
Reynolds Patrick J.
Ryan, Richie.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Treacy, Seán.
Tully, James.

Tellers: Tá: Deputies Carty and Geoghegan; Níl: Deputies L'Estrange and James Tully.

Question declared carried.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".

The Committee divided: Tá. 62; Níl, 43.

Tá

Allen, Lorcan.
Andrews, David.
Blaney, Neil T.
Boland, Kevin.
Booth, Lionel.
Boylan, Terence.
Brady, Philip.
Brennan, Joseph.
Brennan, Paudge.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Ben.
Browne, Patrick.
Burke, Patrick J.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carter, Frank.
Carty, Michael.
Childers, Erskine.
Clohessy, Patrick.
Colley, George.
Corry, Martin J.
Crinion, Brendan.
Cronin. Jerry.
Cunningham, Liam.
Davern, Don.
de Valera, Vivion.
Dowling, Joe.
Egan, Nicholas.
Mooney, Patrick.
Moore, Seán.
Moran, Michael,
Nolan, Thomas.
Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
Fahey, John.
Fanning, John.
Faulkner, Pádraig.
Fttzpatrick, Thomas J. (Dublin South-Central).
Flanagan, Seán.
Foley, Desmond.
Gallagher, James.
Geoghegan, John.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Gogan, Richard P.
Haughey, Charles.
Hilliard, Michael.
Kenneally, William.
Kennedy, James J.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lalor, Patrick J.
Lemass, Noel T.
Lemass, Seán.
Lenihan, Brian.
Lenihan, Patrick.
Lynch, Celia.
Lynch, John.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
Meaney, Tom.
Millar, Anthony G.
Molloy, Robert.
O'Connor, Timothy.
O'Leary, John.
O'Malley, Donogh.
Smith, Patrick.

Níl

Barry, Richard.
Belton, Luke.
Belton, Paddy.
Burke, Joan T.
Burton, Philip.
Clinton, Mark A.
Connor, Patrick.
Coogan, Fintan.
Corish, Brendan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Costello, Declan.
Creed, Donal.
Crotty, Patrick J.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Henry P.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Donegan, Patrick S.
Donnellan, John.
Dunne, Thomas.
Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
Farrelly, Denis.
Fitzpatrick, Thomas J.
FIanagan, Oliver J.
Gilhawley, Eugene.
Governey, Desmond.
Harte, Patrick D.
Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
Jones, Denis F.
Kenny, Henry.
Kyne, Thomas A.
Larkin, Denis.
L'Estrange, Gerald.
Lindsay, Patrick J.
Lyons, Michael D.
O'Donnell, Tom.
O'Hara, Thomas.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
Reynolds, Patrick J.
Ryan, Richie.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Treacy, Seán.
Tully, James.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the

Amendment No. 1a appears on the Order Paper for today. To put it into context and to make it easier for everyone to understand, I think I should read out the definition as it would be if this amendment were made and I shall then explain why I suggest the amendment should be made.

The definition as it would be if the amendment is accepted by the Minister would read as follows :

"business of a livestock mart" means the business of selling livestock by auction or providing, for the holding of sales of livestock by auction or otherwise, a place permanently adapted for the sale of livestock by auction;

The Minister and Deputy Booth and others who took part in the discussion on the first amendment will recall that many Deputies referred to the fact that there was not in the definition section any clear-cut definition of what we meant by "a place adapted for the sale of livestock by auction". I shall not make the claim that the amendment I now propose fully meets the demand that appears to be there for an adequate definition in this section of the meaning of "a place adapted for the sale of livestock by auction" but I do urge on the Minister and on the House that at least if the amendment which I now propose is accepted, if we qualify the word "adapted" by the word "permanently" by making it clear we are referring to a place which has been permanently adapted for a particular use, at least we will be going some distance towards cutting out the type of accidental capture of people and places by this definition section which we referred to earlier.

The whole danger of this section, as I see it—my view is emphasised by the decision the House has just taken to retain the words "or otherwise" in the definition section—is that we may accidentally capture and bring into the net just cast by this definition section places that the Legislature does not intend should be affected in any way by the operation of this Bill,

The Minister was good enough to suggest during the discussion on amendment No. 1 that we should look on this definition section, or we should treat this definition section together with the exemption section contained in the Bill, that is, section 4. I do not know how a discussion on those lines would appeal to the Ceann Comhairle. As matters stand, in any event, we have taken a decision that the words "or otherwise" should remain as part of this definition. The case has been made—I think, correctly—that you can have a situation developing where a livestock mart, as we all know it, a place which is physically a livestock mart is m being and possibly has been used already for the auctioning of livestock, possibly has been in full operation as a livestock mart, as we know it, but for some reason that premises either fails to obtain a licence under the licensing provision of this Bill or, having obtained a licence, the licence is subsequently revoked by the Minister.

That kind of place is one of the types of places which can be accidentally captured by the definition section, as it stands at the moment. The other type is a type which this particular amendment I have moved is designed to meet and to ensure that it will be excluded from this definition. Deputy Clinton in some earlier observation on the last amendment quoted a particular case where the owner of a farmyard put out some bales of straw to provide seating accommodation for persons interested in purchasing cattle. I am not quite sure whether cattle were being sold privately or whether they were being auctioned but there seemed to be some measure of agreement in this House that the action of the owner m providing seating accommodation for purchasers by means of putting out bales of straw was doing something which was adapting his yard for the sale of livestock by auction. I do not know whether I am putting it too far by saying that there was a measure of agreement m that but at least it is clear that even the simple action of a farmer putting out bales of straw in his own yard is doing something which could be called adapting the yard for a use other than the use to which it had heretofore been put.

The Minister agrees there is not. Therefore, on the basis of the definition section as it stands, if a person accidentally adapts his premises, he can be captured, as the Minister has admitted, by this definition section. All I am seeking to ensure is that the Minister will have regard in his licensing provisions only to premises that are permanently adapted for this particular purpose. After all, the licence is intended to apply only to premises that are livestock marts and for so long as they remain livestock marts. Consequently. I do not see that, although it is restricting, this is any weakening of the definition section if the Minister accepts that it should apply only to places which are permanently adapted.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Surely the Minister must concede that the point made by the proposer of the amendment has validity? As the word stands, unqualified, it is wide enough to cover any kind of alteration which accidentally suits the purpose of a cattle mart. The example quoted by Deputy Clinton and others—providing some bales of straw upon which those interested in the purchase or sale of cattle can sit— could well be an adaptation of a place for the auction of stock. Clearly that should not be covered.

The Minister says the amendment is unduly restrictive. He does not explain why. In every indication he has so far given in this debate as to what his intention is—it has not been easy—he has allowed it to emerege that he has in mind a permanent cattle mart where, for some reason in the Minister's mind, the owner of the mart mala fide proceeds to transact the sales of stock otherwise than by auction. If that is, in fact, the Minister's object he is intending to deal with a place which has been permanently adapted for use as a mart in which auctions can be conducted. He does not intend to deal with the fortuitous, accidental or temporary adaptation of a particular place for the sale of cattle.

This amendment is intended to confine the operation of the Bill to what we gather is the Minister's true intention. I cannot understand why the Minister should blandly say this is unduly restrictive and give no more information. We are concerned here on these benches to endeavour to confine the operation of a Bill, to which we expressed opposition on the Second Reading, along the necessary channels only and to prevent words used in our legislation here being so unnecessarily wide as to go beyond what, on the evidence before us as contained in the Minister's statement, is absolutely necessary. In this Bill there is an outrageous interference sought to be made by the Government and the Legislature in what has been the accepted rights of ordinary people. If we, therefore, insist on examining very carefully each word used, we are merely doing our duty. It is clear the word "adapted" in the section as it stands goes far beyond what the Minister says he wants. It is sufficiently wide to cover any form of alteration anywhere, be it in a field or a building, which may be purely fortuitous, merely ad hoc and which may last for a very short time. The Minister does not need the section in the form in which it is, now to achieve what he has in mind and this amendment is designed to restrict the section along the channels he himself indicated it should, in fact, operate. The House deserves more from the Minister than a bland statement that the amendment would unduly restrict the section without indicating why.

Mr. Dillon

I go further than Deputy O'Higgins. Our object here is to make law under which our citizens can operate in the precise knowledge of what the law is and can go about their lawful avocations without finding themselves inadvertently in conflict with the law. As I read this definition section, if a man brings out into his yard what are called in the country "furrums" and a chair, for the purposes of this section, that would be an adaptation for the sale of livestock by auction. If a neighbour drives four bullocks into the yard and, another neighbour walks in and buys the bullocks by hand. then that man has sold the bullocks not by auction; he has sold othewise. Whereupon, to his astonishment, he is deemed to be conducting the business of a livestock mart unless exempted specifically under section 4, which he probably has never heard of, and, having been deemed to be conducting in his yard the business of a livestock mart, he is subject to all the provisions of section 6.

He is subject to all the powers set out in section 7. He is subject, if he should infringe the provisions either of section 6 or section 7, to a fine, as the Bill at present reads, of not more than£1,000 and six months in jail. Really, for carrying six "furrums" and a kitchen chair out of your yard, to find oneself subject to all these sanctions seems to be carrying legislation to an extravagant extreme which, of course, no rational Deputy would for a moment defend. It is sought, therefore, to ensure that "adaptation" shall be qualified. We suggest "permanently adapted". That makes it quite clear that the moving of some furniture out of the yard does not permanently adapt the premises for the purpose of selling livestock by auction.

I know there are certain Deputies on the Fianna Fáil benches who, because they have not studied the Bill, do not realise the effect of some of its provisions. Some of them are perhaps a little impatient at the idea that we should be so concerned to restrict the application of the Bill to the printed word of what may ultimately be the Act if the majority succeed in steamrolling it through this House against the rights of a minority who are so happily protected by Standing Order No. 53.

When we were discussing an earlier amendment. Deputy Booth—with the best intention in the world of being helpful—intervened to point out that the definition as set out in the original Bill, did not catch certain categories of people. Immediately afterwards, the Minister rose to say that of course it caught certain classes of people and why on earth did we imagine he had put in section 4 of the Bill except to provide for these very categories of persons who would inadvertently be caught and that the whole purpose of having section 4 at his disposal was to enable him, ad hoc, to exempt categories of persons who were caught by the definition section.

I suppose the difference in the points of view that obtain between the Government side and the Opposition side is that, very naturally, the Government are inclined to say: "Leave it to us and we shall see that no injustice is done", while the Opposition side naturally see it from the point of view of the individual citizen and they say: "We want to know what the law is, not to be told what the law is likely to be from day to day." If you want to pass a Bill of this kind, let it apply to people who are in the business of conducting cattle marts as that is ordinarily known to rational men and that business involves the permanent adaptation of premises to the purpose of selling cattle by auction.

Suppose the Minister says: "I strongly obiect to the inclusion of the word ` permanent': this too far restricts my definition", is it not reasonable for rational Deputies to say: "This, in itself, is evidence of a desire on the part of the Minister to get powers far in excess of what any reasonable person would be inclined to have"? I think it is evidence of that. Strangely enough, though one might reasonably assume that I would argue strongly that presumption on account of Deputy Blaney being Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, I do not so argue: I think the faults in this definition clause are the consequences of his petulance in getting the Bill drafted.

This Bill is badly drafted because it was drafted at the instance of a Minister in a bad temper who wanted a Bill before the House adjourned for the summer recess, who wanted to get it through the Government and through the House before the House adjourned, and announced: "I intend to get this Bill through before the House adjourns whatever it costs". A Bill so born is usually badly drafted and that is what is wrong with this definition section.

All of us who have any experience of executive responsibility know that it is only human nature for a member of the Executive to get too much power rather than too little and that his general instruction will be: "Collar them all and put in an exemption clause. We can always exempt the ones we do not intend to come within the ambit of this particular piece of legislation". That is bad legislation. Ordinary people, going about their lawful occasions in this country, are entitled to know their legal obligations. There will be Deputies here who will say: "Oh, that is all nonsense. Who knows the whole Statute book?" The answer is that nobody knows the whole Statute Book. I was careful to say "ordinary people going about their lawful occasions want to know the law". Cattle dealers want to know the law in relation to cattle dealing, not in relation to dispensing by pharmaceutical chemists, which they leave to the pharmaceutical chemists. The problem here is that not only cattle dealers but cattle vendors—and that represents practically the whole agricultural community—can study this Bill ad nauseam and get competent people to study it, to advise them on it and may find themselves in the dilemma that nobody really knows what is included and what is not included. The Minister will answer: “Oh. well, if that is your problem, you can always apply to me, under section 4, to grant an exemption and that will cover the whole problem. If you get a certificate of exemption from me, you can do what you like in your own backyard”.

We have talked about "Animal Farm" but have we forgotten "1984"? That is another volume which forecast the day when Governments will claim they should have the power to say to everybody: "You must not get up or you roust not lie down: you must not come in or you must not go out, without permission from me". Is that what the Minister is claiming in the agricultural community? Is there to be a Big Brother hanging on every kitchen wall watching every citizen and waiting to say: Whoa. do not take the "furrums" out of the kitchen to the yard, and if you take a chair as well, apply to me for an exemption or you are in trouble? That is where we are slowly slithering and we are so slithering because we regard as an irrational waste of time precisely to define the categories of persons over whom the Executive is to exercise control.

It is the duty of the Legislature to say to Ministers who aspire to general powers of that kind: "Nothing doing, we are not content to leave it in your hands to grant exemptions or withhold them at your own sweet will. We want to know with precision what the law is and to whom it is supposed to apply. Unless and until that prerequisite is fulfilled we will not provide the money and we will not enact the law." Something that a lot of people outside of this House do not understand is that 80 per cent of the legislation passing through this House passes with little or no debate. Why ? Because 80 per cent of the legislation is a result of careful, protracted consideration and prudent and circumspect drafting and it is dealing with things in which most rational Deputies would arrive at a general consensus. That is what makes people outside the House sometimes say: "Ah, you are all the same."

Is it not astonishing that we should be here confronted with a Bill which so departs from all our normal practice that at last the public are beginning to wake up to the fact that this is a deliberative assembly? Mark you, that fact does not gratify me in the least; I would be much prouder and happier if we were dealing with a Bill which enjoyed a general consensus, and in which we were all agreed to do the best we could to make it better, more efficient, than it would have been in its original draft.

I do not accept the view of the Minister that under this Bill we should collect everybody and then by a process of elimination, exempt those who can make the case that they should not bo subjected to the restrictions which this Bill is designed to apply. The very fact that the Minister challenges Deputy O'Higgins's amendment is a clue to the fact that he wants to include them all. I want to emphasise that I do not think he wants to do that from malice: I think he wants to do it because he had not the time to draft the Bill properly and presented it to the House as an act of defiance and vengeance on the NFA before the summer adjournment. He is purchasing such petty triumph as he may ultimately achieve over the NFA at a great price. We have had two motions for the closure——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is travelling a bit from amendment la.

Mr. Dillon

Perhaps you could tell me. Sir, why does the Minister object to a proposal that the premises to be covered by this Bill should be premises adapted permanently——

An Ceann Comhairle

The only thing the Ceann Comhairle can tell the Deputy is that he feels he is travelling beyond the amendment.

Mr. Dillon

I just want to know why does the Minister refuse to make it "adapted permanently". I do not know and all I can do is speculate. The Minister will not tell us. The natural conclusion is that he is actuated by malice. I acquit him, and I think he is simply stumbling into it by the folly of rushing into a Bill without due preparation. He should realise that the further we go in consideration of this Bill the more circumstances will Involve protracted and tedious debate designed to limit the application of this Bill to the very restricted category of persons the majority of the Minister's supporters in this House believe this Bill is designed to control. The Minister is now having his evening meal and I do not suppose we are going to witness the miracle of the Parliamentary Secretary saying: "Let reason prevail; the berserk boy is out." and accepting the amendment. Still, doubtless he will faithfully report what Deputy O'Higgins and I have said and we must never cease to hope for a miracle, however unlikely.

Mr. James Tully

This Bill is an insult to the intelligence of Deputies for two reasons. One is that nearly two years ago the previous Taoiseach met senior members of the two Opposition Parties with his then Minister for Finance and agreed on a programme which would ensure that the summer recess would take place not later than 30th June in any year. This was confirmedby the present Taoiseach during his short term of office.

Mr. Davern

Surely this is ranging outside the terms of the amendment?

Mr. James Tully

There is one Ceann Comhairle and it is sufficient. If the Parliamentary Secretary will allow me, I will relate my remarks to the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

To the amendment.

Mr. James Tully

To the amendment, Sir. Until the last week in June, there was no indication from anybody that this Bill was to be forced through the House before the summer recess. Now we have the Minister insisting on having the Bill right through and. in addition, refusing to accept even one amendment, despite the fact that the word of the former Taoiseach and the present Taoiseach had been given that certain business would be concluded and that there would be no "fast ones" attempted to be pulled towards the end of the business.

That is my first reason for saying that this Bill is an insult to the intelligenceof Deputies. Apparently, the Minister and those supporting him in this, believe that Deputies do not know enough to understand that this is a complete breach of faith. Secondly, the fact that this Bill has been introduced at all, with the wording of the section standing as it does at present, is absolute proof to me and my Party that the Minister does not believe that Opposition Deputies can understand plain English. In plain English, this says one thing and the Minister blandly stands up and says: "That is not what it means at all. That is not what I mean. I mean to do this. If there is any little bit of confusion, it is all right. We will have an exemption clause later on and we will be able to opt out the people we want opted out."

As this section reads, it simply means that anybody who attempts to sell cattle anywhere that can be prepared by them as a place where an auction or mart can take place, or even an ordinary fair, is opted in.

Is it suggested by the Minister that the only way of dealing with this is for every farmer in the country who has been in the habit of selling cattle in his own yard, who for his own convenience has arranged his farmyard in a certain way for the purpose of selling cattle, will have to apply to the Minister for an exemption so that he could individually opt out?

We have the most unreasonable approach I ever heard of by the Minister right through this Bill. He may say, as he has been saying, that Deputies have been holding up this Bill. I say that, first of all, according to the regulations made in this House, according to the agreements made not alone by the Whips but by the Leaders of the Parties and the former Taoiseach and the present Taoiseach, the Bill should never have been brought in even for a Second Reading before the recess,

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot discuss that on amendment 1a.

Mr. James Tully

I am relating it to this amendment, Sir. That having been brought in, we now find that the Minister is intractable. He says he will not accept this amendment. He said this afternoon he would not waste his time answering anything further, but changed his mind afterwards. I would suggest there is absolutely no reason at all why the Minister would not accept Deputy O'Higgins's amendment. If, as he says, he has been all sweet reasonableness, if he is going to put the exemption section in such a way that this can be dealt with, why not make it easier for everybody and exempt now those who should be exempted by simply adding to the amendment the words suggested?

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I want to support this very reasonable amendment. I consider it a most necessary safeguard for the protection of those farmers dealing with livestock. The longer this discussion goes on, the more I appreciate and agree with my other colleagues who have spoken that this is an appallingly drafted Bill. As Deputy Dillon said, it is a Bill that has been drafted in haste. I do not blame the draftsmen for the condition of the Bill. I blame the Minister for the undue haste with which this has been presented to the country. We are trying to avoid the disastrous results which will accrue by our amendments.

When I was speaking on the earlier Stages of the Bill, I questioned the Parliamentary Secretary as to whether he was a farmer and he said he was not. I want to put this case to the House. I think it is a very fair proposition. For anybody who has cattle to sell, very often the procedure is that, quite unexpectedly, somebody may turn up at a farm and indicate he wishes to buy some cattle. The usual procedure—for the information of the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and their advisers—is that these cattle are inevitably driven into a yard. The very wording of this section, unless it is amended, brings that sale in the yard under the control of this Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. If such is not the case, if the Parliamentary Secretary docs not agree—although he is not a farmer, I take it he has been fully briefed by those advising him and probably fully briefed by the Minister—would he tell me why I am wrong and what there is in the unamended form of this Bill that precludes that from being caught as a sale without the words asked for in the amendment of Deputy O'Higgins?

I shall continue. The cattle are driven into the yard. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will go all the way with me—even my colleague opposite will agree with me—that for the purpose of a sale, even to ascertain the very condition of the cattle, they have to be driven into a yard? As the section stands unamended, unless the words "adapted permanently" are permitted, it is liable to come in as a sale.

In the only contribution the Minister made, when he contributed earlier to justify the existing section, he referred to a later section which he said would safeguard the fanner in this particular matter. We bring the cattle into the yard. Whoever is going to buy them is there. It could very well be that there could be more than one person there. Perhaps some of our colleagues here have not had the same experience as we who are fanners have had in the dealing and sale of cattle. As these deals go on, it can contribute very much to the process of a mart— the fact that the prices are pushed up gradually under the same conditions in which, cattle themselves are sold in marts.

The Minister says that the fanner is safeguarded in a later section. I want to put this to the Government side of the House. Whoever may be concerned or interested in it I do not know. If we accept the fact of what the Minister says—the operative section referred to by the Minister was section 4—unless we can amend the section to legalise the position, we have to get a clause to exempt this particular type of sale, not necessarily from the Minister for Agriculture but from his agent. Take a farmer who brings in his cattle on a nice summer's evening, when he has an opportunity of selling them—and it is not so easy to sell stock nowadays and we do not want any further restrictive practices imposed on us— and an inspector arrives on the scene to do the job that he is ordered to do under the Bill and he says to the farmer that he is operating illegally, then the farmer must seek, under section 4, exemption from the restriction imposed on him in section 1, which we are trying to amend. That means that the sale Is very probably off.

I make this point because this is a restrictive practice and nothing else. I want to put it very urgently before the House that the agricultural community, of which I am a member, are already in sufficient difficulties without having imposed upon them idiotic legislation such as this. There are practical difficulties that are not considered. As Deputy Dillon very truly said, if you produce a Bill m haste, without sufficient thought, it leads to all sorts of snags and difficulties, such as these. A am making this appeal in all sincerity. Some people on the other side of the House may think I am only filibustering: I am not. I am trying to show a definite difficulty that will face fanners if this section is not amended.

It would have been easier for me to speak on this section if the Minister had given some heed to what has been said so far by some of the very able Deputies from these benches. We in these benches study Bills. We also take heed of public opinion. We are not here to obstruct legislation. We are here to defend those who send us to Dáil Éireann. There is considerable apprehension not only amongst farmers but among dealers also.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate that we are not discussing the section; we are discussing amendment No. 1a in the name of Deputy M.J. O'Higgins.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Yes. I think I am making a reasonably good case, although I am not possibly as intelligent as some of my colleagues here. I am trying to make a reasonably good case to show that every fanner will be in difficulties as to whether he can sell or cannot sell. The Minister should approach this in a reasonable manner. We do not Tike this Bill; we do not want this Bill. Neither does anybody else want the Bill. We do want to do our duty and to improve the Bill. If the Bill is to go through, and it looks to me as it will go through only as a result of the use of the guillotine, we want to make it a bit better and to see that it will impose less hardship on the agricultural community. I am happy to see that the Parliamentary Secretary is amused. He must be bored having to sit here and listen to this lengthy discussion, which, I might add, would not be necessary if the sweet light of reason would descend on our colleagues across the way.

May I conclude by saying that we face a definite confrontation on a piece of legislation? We want to amend that legislation. It is our right to do so and our duty to do so and we intend to do so. I hope that when the Minister comes back to the House refreshed after his tea, be will be in better form generally and will take a less biased view of the situation and that the Parliamentary Secretary will place before him the arguments that have been made from these benches and that the Minister will then tell us what he has at the back of his mind. Having sat here for the past three or four hours, I am as wise now, having listened to the Minister, as I was before.

Mr. Ryan

This second amendment to An Bille Um Margalanna Beostoic—is a crucial one, as the Minister admitted in his few brief remarks. We are very glad that we have got it through to the Minister and that he sees the point of this amendment which is to make the Bill a reasonable one and to make it relevant to what the Bill is purported by the Minister to be about. It is supposed to be a Livestock Marts Bill—An Bille Um Margalanna Beostoic. No other language would be permitted in this House to describe what it is supposed to be about. That is what we are told it is about. It is not about the transient and makeshift arrangements made very properly by people selling cattle from time to time, trying to get the best price they can for them but not making a practice of it,

The word "adapted" is a word which indicates something which is transient and makeshift, something which is not lasting. We do not like the word "adapted.""It is clear from other amendments in the names of Deputy Clinton and Deputy O'Higgins that we think better words could be used. The rules of order, to which we remain loyal, prevent us from discussing these other amendments now and we must, therefore, take it word by word and we are confined, therefore, to "a place which is adapted" and we seek to qualify the word "adapted" by putting in the best word available to qualify it and that is to talk about something being permanently adapted. It may be said, quite properly, that when you permanently adapt a place you reconstruct it but the rules of order do not allow us to talk about reconstruction; we can only talk about adaptation and, therefore, we must stick to "that which is temporarily or permanently adapted."

From what the Minister has said, a place which is only temporarily adapted is not the kind of place he has in mind. Therefore, in the regulations which be promised us he will make— that he promised to make here, which is not quotable elsewhere—he will provide exemption for a place which is only temporarily adapted on the occasion of a carnival, a local festival or fete or arrangement between neighbours or whenever some buyer is known to be in the district. If a casual arrangement is made, the Minister will make a regulation, which will be drafted at great public expense and of which only a few copies will be published, and we will have this exemption provided. Instead of trying to catch all the fish in the net and then throwing them out one by one if they do not suit the particular purpose of the Minister from time to time, we suggest that we qualify this here and now by providing that it will apply only to such places as are permanently adapted for the sale of livestock by auction.

The Minister has expressed anxiety on behalf of the Government to get this measure, through the House speedily. He has expressed strange reasons for wishing to do this. If the Minister is sincere in wishing to get this legislation quickly and if he asks us to accept him as reasonable in so exhorting us to pass this legislation quickly, we suggest that the best earnest of his reasonableness would be to accept a reasonable amendment. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to bring this to the Minister's attention: if this amendment is accepted, that is the end of the amendment and we proceed to the next amendment, but if the Government refuse to accept the amendment then we will have it debated at considerable length, because we are not without hope that sooner or later the constant drop of the waters of wisdom on the stone of Fianna Fáil will wear it away.

The proposal which we seek to make here, to provide for the insertion of the word "permanently", will do all the Minister says he wishes to do. He says he wishes to provide for the control and regulation by himself of livestock marts. Now we may be told, as we have already been told, that the place which is casually, accidentally and temporarily re-arranged for the purpose of holding an ad hoc auction is not a livestock mart. Again, as I have said, what the Minister says here will not be quotable elsewhere. That is not law. What will be law, some day in the distant future, is whatever gets through this House and the Seanad in this Bill. If this Bill is brought before another tribunal to assess its constitutionality, the question which the court will ask is not: “Is this good law?” The court may not consider that. They will not ask: “Is this bad law?” The court may not consider that. Rather will they ask: “Is this the law?” and if they find it is in the Bill and if they find there is not some expressed, detailed prohibition in the Constitution against this provision in the Bill, they must take it to be constitutional, even though it is unreasonable, even though it is unnecessary, even though it is more extensive than it ought to be, even though there is no evidence that the Minister has used it in the way we have suggested in the House. The court may only consider what is the law, what is in the Bill, and in the Constitution.

This is just one of the many reasons why we on this side of the House ask for some earnest of reasonableness on the part of the Government, and nothing can be more reasonable than the request which we make, which is not, unfortunately, going to change fundamentally this Bill—the fundamental change we would make would be repel it, to have it rejected or to see it withdrawn; that is the only change we would consider worth while. However, if evil must be done, we want to limit the evil and we can think it by providing that this stipulation will apply only to a bona fide mart, a place which is constructed solely, exclusively and permanently for the purpose of conducting livestock marts, for the sale of livestock by auction.

Including Deputy Ryan.

Mr. L'Estrange

They have a new stamp to commemorate the Minister, 1/2d, a dog eating its own tail.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would Deputy L'Estrange allow his colleague to proceed on the amendment? speaking earlier, when the Deputies from Dublin, other than Deputy Ryan.

Mr. Ryan

If the Ministor will allow me to proceed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Inter ruptions are coming from both sides.

Mr. Ryan

I gladly accept the en couragement from Deputy L'Estrange, whose interruption was very timely. We are dealing with things going around in circles, the livestock marts. The Minister wants to capture every circle, every ring, every makeshift arrangement for the sale of cattle even though——

Mr. Blaney

On a point of order, is it in order to discuss all matters on this single amendment?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No.

The amendment is very specific, and Deputies should relate their remarks to the amendment set down by Deputy Michael J. O'Higgins.

Mr. Ryan

I am glad. Sir, you have pointed this out to the Minister. What the Minister said earlier—and perhaps he forgets what he said——

Mr. Blaney

The Deputy was not here.

Mr. Ryan

The Minister said earlier that the effect of the amendment was to restrict the defination. We readily admit that this is so. Deputy O'Higgins claimed this when he was introducing the amendment. He was supported later by Deputy Dillon, by Deputy T.F. O'Higgins and by Deputy Esmonds, and if there is any doubt about it——

Mr. Blaney

The Deputy was not here. It is no use trying to cod the people outside.

Mr. Clinton

I wonder would the Chair keep the Minister in order.

Mr. Blaney

I want to keep the Deputy truthful.

Mr. Ryan

——let me 6ay we want to restrict it so that it will not apply to all the many places to which the Minister would have it apply. The Minister thought we were going outside the amendment but the amendment seeks to qualify the word "adapted", which I pointed out when the Minister was not here means by its nature something transient, something temporary, which can be as easily re-arranged as it can be adapted in the first instance.

There are other amendments which we are coming to and which the Minister would not wish me to discuss now. We will remain permanently on this word "permanent" until such time as the Minister is reasonable on it. The Minister conceded that he did not wish to capture the accidental arrangements, the bales of straw or the "furrums" to which Deputy Dillon referred. We know he is considering granting exemptions but we say it is through the law which we are considering that this should be done. We want to see that those who wish to keep within that law will know exactly what the legislators had in mind. It is not what the Minister has in mind to do in the future; it is what the law will say, what is in An Bille Um Margalanna Beostoic, 1967 or 1968, as the case may be.

That is what will matter and that is why we are endeavouring to persuade the Minister to accept this most reasonable amendment to this most unreasonable legislation. It is to deal with livestock marts which are permanently constructed for that purpose, not like somebody's yard which is occasionally altered for some other purpose—the casual accidental auction will not be possible under the Bill as it is drawn and it is not any answer to our amendment to say that the matter can be dealt with by regulation. We are here to make laws and now is the time to insert the simple word "permanent".

The Minister has expressed anxiety to get the Bill through quickly. He has admitted that this amendment does not attempt to do more than what be has in mind to do and if he wants to get on to another stage of the Bill, the time to accept this most reasonable amendment, which comes from the most reasonable Party in the country——

Mr. Corish

How many amendments would you settle for ?

Mr. Ryan

We would settle for the Redundancy Bill now.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): The Preamble to the Bill describes it as an Act to provide for the control and regulation by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries of livestock marts and the sale of livestock at such marts and to provide for other matters connected with the matters aforesaid. It seems to me that if this definition of a livestock mart is carried here as adumbrated in the Bill, it will be very difficult to reconcile it with the Preamble to the Bill which specifies livestock marts and the sale of livestock at such marts.

The definition proceeds to enlarge that, and if our amendments are not accepted that definition will be so large as practically to cover all forms of cattle transactions in marts and otherwise, as we understand them. I submit therefore that it is clearly impossible to reconcile the definition which the Minister is putting to the House with the Preamble to the Bill.

Mr. Blaney

What about the amendment ?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Deputy please come to the amendment ?

Mr. P. Hogan

Mr. Blaney

The Deputy should write that down and take it to the courts.

No matter when we may conclude the Bill, we would still have this time-lag and it would depend, before the regulations are got through, on the consultations we have and the agreement we get. It would be difficult to say how long the final regulations would take.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Could the Minister say whether any of the regulations he speaks about which would be the subject of discussion with the bodies referred to would meet any of the amendments put down?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is totally irrelevant. We are discussing amendment No. 1a.

Mr. Corish

We do not want to take up the time of the House and we are asking concrete questions.

Mr. Blaney

If we got in for five minutes, we could solve that part of it.

Mr. Clinton

The Minister's opposition to this amendment is, of course, very similar to his opposition to the previous amendment. He fears that in some way it might limit the limitless powers which he seeks under this Bill and which he insists must be included in the definition section in case he might in some way be frustrated later on in the use of his personal discretion. The Minister has said in relation to this amendment, and I understand he has said it in relation to the previous amendment, that, of course, it all depends on the exemptions. I can see that it depends on exemptions but we do not know what the Minister has in mind.

Earlier on in this discussion the Minister sought to give the impression that he was being absolutely reasonable in this and that he had his own meaning which he attached to this business of a livestock mart and that that could not be, and should not be, interpreted in any other way than what we all know it to be—a livestock mart that is used for that purpose and for that purpose only and constructed for that purpose and for that purpose only. Now, when we want to provide him with an opportunity of showing his sincerity in this regard and to give some meaning to this definition section and when we want to say that it is not a circle made with bales of straw but is something that is permanently constructed, or reconstructed, to be used for the business of a livestock mart where cattle can be brought, impounded and put in pens and driven around and eventually put into these permanently constructed compounds, the Minister does not want any such limitations.

I can appreciate why it is so difficult to get members of the Fianna Fáil Party even to listen to the discussion on this Bill. By doing so, they might give the impression to people outside that they support the Bill and many of them cannot stand on that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on the amendment.

Mr. Clinton

They did not contribute to the discussion on the Bill except to interrupt and we had several interruptions during the course of the Money Resolution.

Mr. Dillon

And they got their noses snapped off.

Mr. Clinton

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy was a little bit late.

Mr. Donegan

That is a fair good maiden speech, mind you.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The matter does not arise on the amendment; Deputies will have to relate their remarks to the amendment.

Deputy Foley rose.

Mr. Dillon

For the love of God, stop interrupting me because the Deputy makes me say things I regret afterwards. Some of these young fellows come at me; I then hit them a haymaker and then I do not sleep all night thinking of what I said to them.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Dillon

An Ceann Comhairle took the Chair.

Mr. Blaney

A Cheann Comhairle, I move that the question be now put.

Mr. Donegan

On a point of order. I did not speak.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is no point of order. A point of order cannot be allowed on a motion that the question be now put.

Mr. Donegan

I did not speak on this amendment.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Before you rule, I think you should receive a report from the Leas-Cheann Comhairle as to whether the matter has been sufficiently discussed and as to whether Deputies who had not partaken in the debate and were offering to speak——

Mr. Blaney

Surely this is purely a matter for the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle?

An Ceann Comhairle

I have considered all the matters concerning the definition amendments. These definition amendments are all amendments to the definition section and they have been very widely and extensively discussed. I do not think I am doing any injury to any minority in the House or injuring the discussion in any way by accepting at this stage the Minister's motion that the question be now put.

I could make it a point of order.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not make a point of order.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I will ask the question after the division.

Question put: "That the question be now put".

The Committee divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 40.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Lorcan.
Andrews, David.
Blaney, Neil T.
Boland, Kevin.
Booth, Lionel.
Boylan, Terence.
Brady, Philip.
Brennan, Joseph.
Brennan, Paudge.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Ben.
Browne, Patrick.
Burke, Patrick J.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carter, Frank.
Carty, Michael.
Childers, Erskine.
Clohessy, Patrick.
Colley, George.
Corry, Martin J.
Crinion, Brendan.
Cronin, Jerry.
Cunningham, Liam.
Davern, Don.
de Valera, Vivion.
Dowling, Joe.
Egan, Nicholas.
Fahey, John.
Fanning, John.
Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Dublin South-Central).
Flanagan, Seán.
Foley, Desmond.
Gallagher, James.
Geoghegan, John.
Gogan, Richard P.
Haughey, Charles.
Hilliard, Michael.
Kenneally, William.
Kennedy, James J.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lalor, Patrick J.
Lemass, Noel T.
Lemass, Seán.
Lenihan, Brian.
Lenihan, Patrick.
Lynch, Celia.
Lynch, John.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
Meaney, Tom.
Millar, Anthony G.
Molloy, Robert.
Mooney, Patrick.
Moore, Seán.
Moran, Michael.
Nolan, Thomas.
Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
O'Connor, Timothy.
O'Leary, John.
O'Malley, Donogh.
Smith, Patrick.

Níl

Barry, Richard.
Belton, Luke.
Belton, Paddy.
Connor, Patrick.
Coogan, Fintan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Costello, Declan.
Creed, Donal.
Crotty, Patrick J.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Henry P.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Donegan, Patrick S.
Donnellan, John.
Dunne, Thomas.
Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
Farrelly, Denis.
Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Cavan).
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Gilhawley, Eugene.
Burke, Joan T.
Burton, Philip.
Clinton, Mark A.
Governey, Desmond.
Harte, Patrick D.
Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
Jones, Denis F.
Kenny, Henry.
L'Estrange, Gerald.
Lindsay, Patrick J.
Lyons, Michael D.
O'Donnell, Patrick.
O'Donnell, Tom.
O'Hara, Thomas.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
Reynolds, Patrick J.
Ryan, Richie.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Treacy, Seán.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Carty and Geoghegan; Níl: Deputies L'Estrange and T. Dunne.

Question declared carried.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 40; Níl, 63.

Tá

Barry, Richard.
Belton, Luke.
Belton, Paddy.
Burke, Joan T.
Burton, Philip.
Clinton, Mark A.
Connor, Patrick.
Coogan, Fintan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Costello, Declan.
Creed, Donal.
Crotty, Patrick J.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Henry P.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Donegan, Patrick S.
Donnellan, John.
Dunne, Thomas.
Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
Farrelly, Denis.
Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Cavan).
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Gilhawley, Eugene.
Governey, Desmond.
Harte, Patrick D.
Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
Jones, Denis F.
Kenny, Henry.
L'Estrange, Gerald.
Lindsay, Patrick J.
Lyons, Michael D.
Murphy, Michael P.
O'Donnell, Patrick.
O'Donnell, Tom.
O'Hara, Thomas.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
Reynolds, Patrick J.
Ryan, Richie.
Sweetman, Gerard.

Níl

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Lorcan.
Andrews, David.
Blaney, Neil T.
Boland, Kevin.
Booth, Lionel.
Boylan, Terence.
Brady, Philip.
Brennan, Joseph.
Brennan, Paudge.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Ben.
Browne, Patrick.
Burke, Patrick J.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carter, Frank.
Carty, Michael.
Childers, Erskine.
Clohessy, Patrick.
Colley, George.
Corry, Martin J.
Kennedy, James J.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lalor, Patrick J.
Lemass, Noel T.
Lemass, Seán.
Lenihan, Brian.
Lenihan, Patrick.
Lynch, Celia.
Lynch, John.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
Meaney, Tom.
Crinion, Brendan.
Cronin, Jerry.
Cunningham, Liam.
Davern, Don.
de Valera, Vivion.
Dowling, Joe.
Egan, Nicholas.
Fahey, John.
Fanning, John.
Faulkner, Pádraig.
Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Dublin South-Central).
Flanagan, Seán.
Foley, Desmond.
Gallagher, James.
Geoghegan, John.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Gogan, Richard P.
Haughey, Charles.
Hilliard, Michael.
Kenneally, William.
Millar, Anthony G.
Molloy, Robert.
Mooney, Patrick.
Moore, Seán.
Moran, Michael.
Nolan, Thomas.
Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
O'Connor, Timothy.
O'Leary, John.
O'Malley, Donogh.
Smith, Patrick.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies L'Estrange and T. Dunne; Níl: Deputies Carty and Geoghegan.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Before we go on to the next amendment, might I ask for a direction from the Chair with regard to the situation which has now arisen twice? On two occasions the Minister has moved the closure motion when the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was in the Chair. It is clear under Standing Orders that that particular Standing Order can be put into operation only when you are in the Chair. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle I think quite properly, decided all he could do was to send for you. Now, during the period while the House was waiting for you to come here, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, as I understand it, has decided the House is not in session, notwithstanding the fact that the adjournment of the House has not been moved. There seems to be confusion amongst Deputies and indeed amongst your staff, the Official Reporter, as to whether or not discussion can take place or debate continue, pending your arrival to consider the motion put by the Minister. It seems to me that the Minister might feel inclined to make other such proposals before this debate concludes and we should all be clear as to how we stand in that event.

Mr. Blaney

What a thought.

An Ceann Comhairle

The matter the Deputy has referred to is simple. Once the Minister has moved the motion, asked for a closure and the Ceann Comhairle sent for, business is interrupted until the Chair is taken by the Ceann Comhairle.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I do not want to be argumentative, but I want to be clear in my mind about this. Surely the position is that the motion cannot be accepted until the Ceann Comhairle is in the Chair? That being so, is it not the position that the business before the House is still the amendment that was being discussed prior to the arrival of the Ceann Comhairle? The last point I want to make is, if the position is simply that no discussion can take place, is it correct then to describe the House as not being in session? If the House is not in session, surely a motion to that effect should come from someone?

An Ceann Comhairle

The situation envisaged by Standing Orders is clearly that the motion "That the question be now put" would not be moved until the Ceann Comhairle was in the Chair.

It is a matter for the Chair to decide.

Mr. Dillon

On a point of order, may we take it now that, under Standing Order 53, the motion "That the question be now put" shall not be received by the Chair unless the Ceann Comhairle is in occupation thereof?

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that in the Standing Orders? If it is in the Standing Orders——

Mr. Dillon

The Standing Order says:

Hear, hear.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

But if the claim to make it is made, surely it seems to follow it does not operate to prevent debate?

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not know what was in the minds of the people who framed the Standing Order and I am not going to assume anything. Amendment No. 2 now, in the name of Deputy M.J. O'Higgins.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I move:

In page 2, line 15, to delete "adapted" and substitute "constructed" or "reconstructed".

You may have gathered, Sir, that this word "adapted" which appears in the definition section of this Bill has been causing Deputies some worry and some concern. The case I want to make in connection with this amendment is that it would be an ease to the Dáil, as a whole, and even to the Minister, if we got rid of this word "adapted" in the definition section. From the discussions which have taken place, I think the Minister, and Deputies generally, will agree that the word "adapted" used in the context in which it is used in this section is both loose and vague. Examples have been given of the type of case which can arise in which it could be truly said that a place has been "adapted", and I think it is clear that neither the Minister nor the Government, and certainly not the Deputies, have any intention that a particular place so "adapted" should be covered by the definition of a business for the sale of livestock by auction, as proposed in this Bill.

If, as I believe to be the case, the Minister intends that this Bill should operate and that the provisions of the definition section should apply only to livestock marts that are properly and genuinely built and erected as such, then I think his purpose, so far as this section is concerned, would be better served by making the position clear. I am suggesting, in moving this amendment, that the position would be clearer if, instead of using the word "adapted" in relation to a place for the sale of livestock by auction, the Minister would agree to defining such a place as being a place constructed or reconstructed for the sale of livestock by auction.

In choosing the words "constructed or re-constructed", I have in mind that they would import into this section and would imply that something positive and active requires to be done to the place in question before it can fall within the definition of the business of a livestock mart. I think it has adequately been demonstrated that so long as we adhere to the definition proposed by the Minister, so long as we allow this definition section to remain with the word "adapted" in it, then it is quite possible that accidental adaptations may take place and that premises not intended by the Legislature to be captured by this definition may in fact be captured.

In discussing a previous amendment, the Minister gave as his reason for resisting it the fact that it was restrictive of the definition section of the Bill and, as such, not acceptable. I do not think the same objection can be made against this amendment. I do not think the amendment I now propose—the deletion of the word "adapted' and the substitution of the words "constructed or reconstructed"—can in the same sense be regarded as restrictive. I think the amendment would indicate what I believe would be the true intention of the Legislature in relation to this measure, namely, that if it is passed by the Oireachtas, it should apply only to livestock marts which are genuinely constructed or reconstructed as such.

Other Deputies who are more familiar with the common lay-out of livestock marts as they are known today in different constituencies will, I believe, describe adequately to the Minister the type of erection commonly known and described as a livestock mart. As Deputy Hogan mentioned earlier in relation to another amendment, namely, that when we speak of a livestock mart, we think in terms of a building and a compound, generally speaking, and in order to have such a building and such a compound and in order to have the accommodation for livestock and for prospective purchasers attending when the business of the livestock mart is in operation and accommodation also, if necessary, for the owner of the livestock that is to be auctioned, a certain amount of solid erection work is necessary.

Not a bit.

Mr. Clinton

He feels he has put his foot in it, or if he has not, Deputy Cunningham or Deputy Booth has. Deputy Booth came in and did a very useful job. He gave the Oxford dictionary meaning of the word "adapted" and, of course, we all know that the Minister made it quite clear that that is not the meaning he attributes to the word.

Mr. Booth

That is not a fact.

Mr. Clinton

Mr. Donegan

And for the inspectors.

Mr. Clinton

You have to make all these people comfortable. Of course, the ancillary buildings to the mart must be very much more extensive than the actual mart itself. The Minister has indicated clearly that he wants this to be a permanent mart, something that can be recognised as a mart and nothing else. That involves covering the inner section and making the people comfortable. The Minister has even made provision for heating and for all the facilities one would expect to find in an up-to-date mart. At present, we have some of the most up-to-date and best equipped livestock marts in Europe, but the Minister is obviously making provision to have them even better. We want to help him in this definition to ensure that these places are constructed, taking all the difficult steps I have outlined, in such a way that they will not be knocked down by the first bullock that goes into them. They must not be just snow walls or bales of straw, but must be solid gun barrels put down in concrete. The Minister wants to ensure all this. But I am afraid he has left this definition section so open and ambiguous that it could be sidestepped by people who have other ways. It could be built with sods in Donegal or with furze bushes, or anything which a couple of good dogs might be able to manage. The Minister wants a permanent construction and we want to ensure that he gets it, that the people will undertake this difficult task and do all the things necessary to construct the building.

Of course, it is possible, as Deputy Cunningham said, that that might not be necessary. It is possible that there would be some sort of sales yard, or a yard used for any other purpose, in existence already and that that place might not have to be constructed from the bottom up. It might be possible to reconstruct such a place in such a manner as would satisfy the Minister's ambitions in regard to the permanent and obvious indications of a livestock mart, as he sees it and as he wishes it to be in the future. I can assure the Minister that this amendment put down by Deputy O'Higgins has only one purpose in mind, that is, to meet with his wishes. We want to do everything possible, now that we see the Minister wants something good, to assist him. We do not want anybody to be in a position to sidestep his intentions in relation to this. He probably does not realise that this section is too loose and that he will not get what he wants.

We have just begun discussing this. It may take hours, or days, to discuss it. In fact, this might not be all that is needed. At the moment, it is all we are looking for. We think it is fairly secure if the Minister deletes this word so many meanings have been attached to by various people—this loose, open, ambiguous word "adapted"—and substitutes "constructed or reconstructed." I hope the Minister will see the good sense of this amendment and that, when he has time to give it mature consideration, he will stand up and make his contribution to this discussion and say: "I see the wisdom of this, after all. That is the only type of mart I will have in the future—one properly constructed or reconstructed to give me what I have in mind and not every sort of huckster set-up that could possibly be put up if I left the definition as it is at present."

Mr. Blaney

Listening to the Fine Gael speakers tends to confuse one. The section, as it stands, reads:

"business of a livestock mart" means the business of selling livestock by auction or providing, for the holding of sales of livestock by auction or otherwise, a place adapted for the sale of livestock by auction;

That is as it is and as I hope, it will remain. But here is how it would read with the four Fine Gael proposals added on to it:

"Business of a livestock mart" means the business of selling livestock by auction or providing, for the holding of sales by auction or otherwise, a place permanently adapted, exclusively and habitually used for the sale of livestock by auction but does not include the sale otherwise than by auction of livestock the property of the proprietor of such a place.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

You are leaving out a bit.

Mr. Blaney

It was possibly to avoid overburdening your mental capacity that I left it out.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Amendment No. 3.

Mr. Blaney

We will add that one later on. Read that with those four amendments and read what is there and then begin to ask yourself which of the two is the more clear, or if you want to take the Fine Gael outlook, which of the two is the least obscure. You will have no doubt in coming back to the original wording. Incidentally, that was not just thought up on the spur of the moment, nor was there undue haste on the part of the draftsmen. But, as some of the Fine Gael speakers inadvertently said here, it was done deliberately at the request of the Minister by the draftsmen going to great pains. That is the way in which this section was drafted, rather than the allegations of haste and that it was badly done as a result.

Do not worry. I am sorry we did not hear from Deputy Esmonde earlier tonight. He was good sport the last night and we might as well be listening to a bit of fun as to a lot of the bunkum we had to listen to. It should not be confused with what Deputy Cunningham said. As I said, "to adapt" is to make fit or suitable. What is wrong with that, even for Fine Gael? Is there anything wrong? How can that be improved upon in helping "the Minister to do what he wishes to do in ths definition section? I know that Deputy Clinton's heart bleeds for the Minister in his dilemma in trying to deal with unreasonable opposition —apart from himself—and that he is doing his utmost to make it possible for the Minister to get through a section that will really do a useful job in regard to the marts. All I am saying is: "Thank you very much, Deputy, for your offer." I appreciate the spirit in which it is made, but, at the same time, the word "adapted" is, to me, a far better and far more suitable word in this context than the amendment. For that reason, I am sorry I cannot see my way to accept the amendment. We could add Chambers' Dictionary to the Oxford Dictionary already quoted. Perhaps a perusal of the two dictionaries might not be much harm. I suggest the Opposition might peruse them rather than refer me back to the meaning of "construction" and "reconstruction" which they feel I should study some time in the not too distant future.

The part of this Bill which uses the word "adapted" is quite as I want it, quite as I asked for it. Deputies have made a point of this. They keep saying that the Minister has said that he got what he asked the draftsman for but they do not know what he was asked for. I am saying straight back that it is as simple as this: I have got what I asked for. Therefore, what is in the Bill is what I asked for and therefore there should be no further question.

Mr. Clinton

You said you asked in layman's language.

Mr. Blaney

I did not qualify it by what sort of language. It could have been any sort of language, but I asked for it. I asked for what I wanted and I did say that when I got it back, without any legal assistance or interpretation, I was able to read from it and see clearly that what he has given me is exactly what I asked for. So, again, I say to the Opposition, in case this conundrum is difficult for them at this hour of the night, that what is in the Bill is what I asked for. Having got what I wanted, obviously, what is in the Bill is what I asked for.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The Minister's intervention has been very revealing. I have been arguing in connection with this section that the word "adapted" as it is used means that any place which is made suitable for use for the auctioning of live stock is captured by the definition. The Minister now makes it quite clear that he agrees with that point of view, that if a place is made fit or suitable for sale of livestock by auction it is then adapted for that purpose. Therein lies the whole danger in this definition section. Remember it does not now apply only to a place where livestock is, in fact, auctioned. It can apply to any type of sale of livestock because the Minister, supported by the Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party, in the Division Lobby, has insisted on the retention of the words "or otherwise" in the definition section, so that from the time of that decision onwards we must take it that we are talking now, not merely about the sale of livestock by auction, but about the sale of livestock in any manner at all, whether it be by auction or by private sale.

My remarks, unlike this definition, are not doublebarrelled; I want to make a clean sweep of what I am saying. Those particular places to which Deputy Cunningham refers, on acceptance of this amendment, would have complete authority and protection. They could not be interfered with. They would not require to be licensed. That would leave the position that there would still be a certain type of livestock mart that would require to be licensed and that type of livestock mart that would require to be licensed would, as far as I can judge the situation, be the livestock mart the Minister wants to have licensed, the livestock mart that is permanent in character, that is constructed or reconstructed for the purpose of being used as a livestock mart, where there is something done in a positive and in a concrete way to turn it into a livestock mart.

I may be wrong—no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will be anxious to correct me if I am—but I understand that that is what the Minister wants to provide for in this Bill, that that is the kind of mart that the Minister feels requires to be regulated, that the Minister wants the powers under this Bill, amongst other things, to prevent that type of mart proliferating unduly. If the Minister and Deputy Booth get together tonight, have a chat about this section and look at the amendment I am proposing, they will see that there is a certain amount to be said for it. They will see this much in any event, that as long as we leave the word "adapted" in the Bill unaltered, unqualified, then you arrive at a situation which is dangerous, you arrive at a situation where this Bill may operate in a way that is not intended either by the Minister in introducing it or by the Oireachtas in accepting it,

The word "adapted", according to the Minister, means "to make fit or suitable". I accept that. I think it is a reasonable definition. It is shorter than the definition which Deputy Booth read out here earlier today, but it is a definition which shows very clearly how elastic the word "adapted" may be when used in this context. It emphasises again the danger of leaving a word as elastic as that as the word which governs, in effect, one part of the definition of the business of a livestock mart.

I do not want any accidents to happen in relation to this Bill. If this Bill must go through, then let it go through in such a manner that it will have incorporated in its provisions the true intention of the Oireachtas and that we shall not have a situation arising later perhaps under a different Minister, perhaps under a different administration, where the Bill which we pass for one purpose could be used and be regarded as being for another purpose at another time. That is the kind of danger I see here, and that is why I feel strongly that the amendment I am proposing warrants the very closest attention and consideration by the Minister.

Mr. Donegan

We are discussing the substitution of the words "constructed or reconstructed" for the word "adapted", and we have had definitions and dictionary meanings of the word "adapted". Dictionary meanings are one thing and practice and usage of the English language another. I would wish to give a few extra interpretations. If I wished, I could take quotations from the Minister's speeches here on this Bill or any other Bill in the past and adapt them for my own purposes, quoting them back so that their meaning would give support to my own views on the subject. That would be an adaptation which would not change, by the dotting an "i" or the crossing a "t", the Minister's own words.

Similarly if there was—I hope there never will be—a dispersal sale in my farmyard and if without changing one of the gun barrels that Deputy Clinton talks about—in this case it would not be gun barrels but bits of timber out of the hedge—used to divide a shed into four pens, sheds where cows are put that are about to calve or cows that are suckling calves and if these pens, without being changed in any way, were adapted for the use of cattle to be sold and if these cattle emerged from these doors into the yard and were auctioned by a licensed auctioneer, there would then be carried on the business referred to in this Livestock Marts Bill.

Similarly, if these cows emerged and were sold by me to a cattle trader or a farmer friend—Deputy Corry, if he chose to come along—there would then be carried on as long as the word "adapted" for sale of livestock remains in this Bill the business of selling cattle. I refer back to the question of the interpretation I might put in a passage in a speech by the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary, or by Deputy Corry, Deputy Clinton or any other Deputy to suit my own purposes. The devil can quote Scripture for his own purposes and that, I think, is straight from the Gospel. There is no reason why, if we can do this with words, we cannot do it with farmyards, buildings or any other places and thus we immediately bring the entire cattle trade within the control of this Bill. This has not been said before and I cannot emphasise it sufficiently: if we take the meaning in the definition section of the word "adapted" and if we take the practice and usage of that word in the English language, then the Minister is seeking control of the entire cattle trade.

The example has been used here of the few straw bales set up around a farmer's yard for a dispersal sale and this was meant to constitute a saleyard. Perhaps my colleagues were far too kind and too generous in their interpretation because I say the straw bales are not necessary, and that if the yard or place or public road or fair green is adapted for the purpose of selling cattle, then that action has become enveloped, if we leave the word adapted in the Bill, by the tentacles of the Bill. That involves putting the entire cattle trade under control. That is what the Minister seeks and that may not have been said as forcefully as I wish to put it now.

The Minister made great play of the discussion he had with the parliamentary draftsman and said that there should be no more talk about this because, he said, he had asked in the language of a normal man for what he wanted, that he got what he wanted and that was what is in the Bill. If brought to its full usage, from its dictionary definition provided by Deputy Booth, the word "adapted" means complete control of the cattle trade here. It means that when my father used to send me to the fair of Loughrea many years ago, give me two cheques and tell me to come back with three cattle and abuse me when I did, no matter how good or how cheap were the beasts I bought, that action of mine in coming up to a man on the fair green and buying two cattle with one cheque and going to his neighbour and buying another beast with the other cheque, represented the business of selling cattle if we put the normal usage and interpretation that it would bear on "adapted" in the definition section of this Bill.

I have spoken very briefly on this Bill but I want to make the point as strongly as I can that the Minister has said that what he asked the parliamentary draftsman for, he got. I am clear in my own mind that the use of the word "adapted" means entire control of the cattle trade. On the other hand, the amendment proposed by Deputy O'Higgins on behalf of the Fine Gael Party means restriction of the power in this Bill to cover places where the business of carrying on cattle sales is normally transacted. "Constructed or reconstructed" means the introduction of concrete or gun barrel pipes and pens and a compound. It means that here you have a place easily definable or recognisable as a place constructed or reconstructed for the sale of cattle. It immediately obviates the question of the dispersal sale which I hope will never happen in my place.

We of Fine Gael have been attacked by the Minister on this point. He says that in another section of the Bill there is permission to exempt. Surely, if there is merely right to exempt, that is again in the Minister's hands and the position is that he has taken full control of the cattle trade and at the same time, has taken the right to exempt, if he chooses to do so, certain individual sales on farmers' places or in other places such as fairs. Paramount in the thinking on this whole section is this: if the Minister wants to do it, and if he wishes not to exempt, he takes for the first time into his own hands, control of the entire cattle trade of the country. If the word "adapted" remains, the Minister, if he so desires, can direct the cattle under the provisions of this Bill, towards beef or towards store cattle, or towards certain avenues of sale and purchase, and if he wanted to direct them in other ways, he could do so. He got what he wanted when he asked the parliamentary draftsman for a wording and phrasing in the definition section. He got complete control of the cattle trade as long as the word "adapted" remains there.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): It is clear from the continued opposition of the Minister to the various amendments we have put down to this definition section that what the previous speaker has said is true, that the Minister is not seeking control of the livestock marts as we know them but of the cattle trade in general. I submit that even from the point of accuracy in terminology or nomenclature, this should not be termed the Livestock Marts Bill but the Livestock Sales Bill, or even the Livestock Bill, because it has ceased to be applicable, or solely applicable, to livestock marts by virtue of the fact that the Minister has resisted all our amendments.

We have been endeavouring in the case of this amendment as in the case of the previous one to put the definition as given here into more concrete form and apply it specifically to livestock marts. This is being resisted and I would ask the Minister whether he wants nobody in the livestock business excluded from the provisions of this Bill. That is a fair question to ask. If he wants nobody excluded, why is he introducing an exemption clause at all? If on the other hand, there appear to be certain further exemptions, as obviously there must be when the Minister has an exemption clause in the Bill, why will he not allow us, and indeed help us, to define and spell out the categories that may be exempted.

This amendment, as other amendments, is an attempt to define the position so that certain categories of operators may automatically be excluded from the Bill, so they will not have to go cap in hand to make representations at a later stage, but will have this exemption as a right and not as a concession.

This is basically good democracy. It may be difficult to define any category, but if the amendments we have introduced, or some of them, were accepted in a more reasonable spirit by the Minister, we would feel we were getting somewhere and might be able to get over the broad, ambiguous, all-embracing nature of the Minister's definition in the Bill. That definition is so extremely important that the Bill hangs on it. It defines the number of categories of operators to which the Bill will apply. We are trying to narrow down the classes to whom it will be applicable at a later stage.

It is for that reason we have brought in these various amendments. I cannot see why, if the Minister is prepared to make exemptions, he could not at this stage accept by definition certain categories, those categories which will be excluded from the operation of this Bill if our amendments are allowed to stand.

It is clear from the point of view of administration that the Minister wishes to give himself more iron control, and adopt a less generous attitude, if he wishes to retain the ambiguous nature of the Bill and have all exemptions sent in to him later to be adjudged by him personally without appeal to a court or anybody else. Because of that objection to the definition, and to its broad nature, we have submitted these amendments.

First of all, there is the nature of the business, whether it is an auction or any means of sale—(a) a method of sale and (b) the place where the sale takes place. If the Minister had adopted our concept of a mart as a place where cattle are sold by auction in a well defined enclosure of buildings which is the ordinary concept of a mart, then we would know where we stand, but the Minister defines all forms of transfer, auction or otherwise, by hand, barter or otherwise. Any place that can be adapted is without qualification. He will not allow any place which can be adapted in the most loose fashion under this ambiguously defined and broad measure. Any place, therefore, comes within the terms of the Bill and will be subject to the onerous restrictions which the other sections of the Bill spell out.

These are our objections to it and I cannot see why the Minister will not list those people who may later qualify for exemption. There will be many categories who will be exempted later on and possibly the Minister has these categories defined in his mind now. I cannot see why he cannot incorporate the substance of them in the Bill by accepting the amendments which we have put down here one after another, including that now under discussion.

Mr. Harte

I should like to express my sentiments as to how this Bill will affect the agricultural community in Donegal. I should like to tell the House that there are three different ways by which cattle or livestock are sold in County Donegal, the old traditional way of the fair, the new method of marts and other traditional methods such as in the farmyard.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Harte

I was saying that occasionally we have cattle sales in farmyards.

Mr. Andrews

Deputy M. J. O'Higgins said that what the Deputy has to say is important. Let us now see how important it is.

Mr. Harte

Coming from a constituency like Dún Laoghaire/Rathdown, the Deputy knows as little about a cattle mart as a cattle mart——

Mr. Andrews

We have very important marts in Dún Laoghaire.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Andrews, if he wishes to contribute, can make a statement himself.

Mr. Andrews

I have just made it.

Mr. Harte

And if he is as successful as his father in other walks of life——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Harte

I was saying that we have three methods of selling cattle in Donegal. Traditionally, we have the fair which, apparently, has now given way to cattle marts but we still have another traditional way of selling cattle, namely, sale in the farmyard. This is a system which will stay with us, in spite of all the developments which co-operative movements have provided in the organisation of co-operative marts. Coming from the same constituency as the Minister, I am quite sure constituents of his have made their protest to him, that this in effect is a threat to a traditional way of selling cattle in County Donegal, and if we must have the Bill, is it too much to ask that he will accept the amendments proposed in the name of Deputy M.J. O'Higgins? This means that if any small farmer wishes to have a farmyard sale, he contacts a local auctioneer—at least this has been the procedure—and the auction is advertised. The system is that the buyers, or indeed the audience, form a circle; the livestock, the cattle, calves and sheep, are let out to the farmyard from a shed and the auctioneer tries to get the best price possible for the stock he is selling. Does this not mean that this farmyard has been adapted for this purpose, merely by those people attending the auction creating a circle—not a ring, as Deputy Corry might imply in another context.

Mr. Carty

Do not bring Deputy Corry down on top of us; he is up there.

Mr. Harte

Nobody will be more pleased to see him take his seat than myself.

Mr. Corry

Carry on.

Mr. Harte

At least I have one disciple in the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. Corry

I would not upset you for the world.

Mr. Harte

I suggest that if the words proposed in the amendment were included, it would protect such types of sales.

Mr. Harte

I am quite on the mark, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I am making the point that the type of people whom this can affect are the people who have come to my house in the past fortnight, and it is not unreasonable of me to think that the same people, or people like them, have made the same approaches to the Minister and to Deputy Cunningham. If they carried on the same type of conversation in their livingrooms as they did in mine, then they are against this Bill.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Harte

Would some Deputies support the Bill by making some contribution instead of, when someone calls for a quorum, coming in so annoyed that they continue to interrupt? I am quite sure that people have been in contact with Deputy Molloy, for instance, over the past fortnight and I wonder if the Deputy would be manly enough to tell the House what they have told him. Would he go on record as saying that he is either in support of or against this Bill? We know that when the division bell goes, Deputy Molloy, like his other colleagues, will trot after the Minister or the Taoiseach through the Division Lobbies.

I am glad Deputy Corry has offered help because listening to him speaking on this Bill last week, I could not relate what he said then to what he said in the discussions here during the Economic War.

I support the amendment because I believe that small farmers elected the Minister, elected Deputy Cunningham and elected me to represent them as best we see fit. I am glad Deputy Cunningham has now come into the House, despite the fact that there is only one minute left, and I want to ask him through the Chair have the people——

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 19th July, 1967

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 18 Jul 1967

Livestock Marts Bill, 1967: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 18 Jul 1967