Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 Jun 1968

Vol. 235 No. 6

Wool Marketing Bill, 1968: Committee Stage (Resumed).

SECTION 11.

Mr. Clinton

I move amendment No. 16:

In subsection (1), page 8, line 1, to delete "The Minister" and substitute "An Chomhairle".

I put down this amendment because I feel that it is important when setting up such a board as An Chomhairle Olla to give it some power and authority. Section 11 deals with the making of regulations relating to the purchase of wool, to premises, plant and machinery and to the register. I cannot see why the Minister should regard it as a matter of importance to retain these functions unto himself. I do not understand why he does not allow An Chomhairle Olla to prescribe the standards of buildings and equipment, the various grades of wool and the price increases and reductions to be attached to the various grades of wool. Surely, if An Chomhairle Olla has any function at all, this is where it should come in?

The great mistake the Minister is making throughout the Bill is that he is setting up a board to do a job and is leaving them without the power or authority to be respected or regarded as a group that has any authority directly to insist on standards or to decide when certain new grades and certain new performances should be prescribed. It is only the Wool Board that can be sufficiently close to this whole operation to be in a position to make these decisions if the scheme is to be a success. Still, the Minister insists that it is he who has to make all these regulations and do everything that is required to be done. As far as I can see, so much can be done by regulation made by the Minister as to make a farce of the Bill. The Minister appears to tie himself partly and then in a few sweeping lines provides that the Minister can, by regulation, do practically anything.

In subclause (b) of subsection (2) of section 11 it is provided:

in relation to every sale of wool by a producer, provide for the supply to the producer by the relevant registered buyer of a statement by such buyer containing such particulars as may be prescribed.

I wonder would the Minister give some explanation of the type of particulars he might have in mind? It is not good enough to bring legislation into the House and not be able to spell out in advance what is intended under the various subsections. No explanatory memorandum has been issued with the Bill. It is not good enough to pass these sections as they stand, knowing so very little about their contents. The whole thing is so vague that anything can be prescribed by regulation. We do not get examples as to what the Minister has in mind.

In all fairness to the House, the Minister might give some idea of what he has in mind and he should also tell the House why he feels he should retain all these powers rather than that they should be given to this board, the members of which he has insisted he must select. I do not think he should select them and I have said so already. I assume the Minister must have confidence in the people whom he himself selects. Why not give them direct power and authority to get on with the job, without the necessity to have recourse to the Minister on every occasion?

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Blaney)

Answering the case made for the amendment, I should like to draw the attention of Deputy Clinton and of the House to the Report of the Wool Improvements Committee, page 34, article 138, where it is stated:

The Committee considers it is a matter of convenience to arrange whether the registration of wool buyers, licensing of exporters and the employment of supervisory staff should be undertaken by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Council. On balance, the Committee saw merit in their being undertaken by the Department.

These, again, are a body of people who sat on this Committee who are of standing, knowledge and experience, and one might very readily answer Deputy Clinton's arguments by saying that we recognise their knowledge and experience and the worth of them to the degree that in this regard we have taken their recommendations. But, perhaps, that in itself is not sufficient to answer Deputy Clinton. I might say in this regard that in so far as the regulations are concerned—before going on to deal with them in so far as the amendment is concerned—Deputy Clinton had already asked what they are going to be. I might again answer that by asking, if his amendment were accepted, what did he envisage they were going to be. Since the Wool Board is not yet established and could not possibly be asked to come into the House to elaborate in detail and give every line of what they would propose to do by way of regulation if the amendment were accepted, it is rather unreasonable to expect the Minister at this juncture, on the emergence of this Bill, in its passage through the House, to do something which, if the Deputy had his way, the board could not be asked to do until after the measure has become law, if it ever does become law.

So far as grading regulations, registration and licensing are concerned, I do not think it is an exercise one can go into at this juncture in a detailed way because I would hope that the legislation we are putting through the House at the moment will stand the test of time. Indeed, what might be thought of as regulations and standards of today would be capable of change and, indeed, may be changed according to circumstances developing in future. Overall, I cannot see how the Deputy can expect at this juncture to get details of the regulations in advance of the power to make these regulations. I should imagine that the Deputy does agree that some regulation and statement of standards is necessary. Indeed, one of the prime reasons for part of this Bill is that this necessity is recognised.

The Wool Improvements Committee recognised this as part of the job to be done in order to have more orderly and better marketing, with a better return to the wool producers. The need for it is recognised, therefore. The detailing of how it will be done must await the legislation which we are now working on in the House. I am sure the Deputy will accept that we are not going to bring in needless or useless regulations when the whole purpose of the effort is the improvement of the wool trade as a whole.

It is not timely that we should in this amendment spell out what might be done either in the immediate future or the distant future. I hope this Bill, if passed, will be the basis on which our wool marketing will progress in the years ahead. Undoubtedly changes will be made in the light of changing circumstances. The Wool Improvement Committee see merit in these matters being left in the hands of the Minister, and in this particular instance, I agree with them that this is the way it should be. If one were to ask what was the basic reason why they think so and I think so, for my part I certainly feel that the making of these regulations and the laying down of these standards is part of the job to be done. The board will be part of the paraphernalia to make it possible to have the law carried out—all in the interests of the producer. Since the Minister for Agriculture will be the person charged with the organisation of wool marketing under this Bill, it is only proper that he and his Department should lay down the standards, look after the registrations and licences and all that has to be done. They should have the laying down of the guidelines for the job. The board will be part of the operational personnel who will carry out the intentions of the Bill to improve our wool marketing position.

Mr. Clinton

The Minister says in this instance he agrees with the Committee that the power to make these regulations and to do all the things to be done under section 11 should be retained by the Minister and his Department. I think the Minister would agree, not only in this instance but in any instance, that it would be suggested that he should retain control and power. I just want to have it on record that I disagree with the view that this sort of dual responsibility and dual control is ever a satisfactory instrument. Where you have two bodies responsible for the same job, it never works well. What is everybody's business is nobody's business. I like something direct. If the Minister sets up a board to do a job, he should give them the power and responsibility to do it. In this case he is not doing it. He is retaining the principal power and authority himself. He is just having a board to work under him. I do not see where a board can be of any assistance if the Minister is going to do the job himself. It appears to me he is going to appoint the officers who are actually going to do the work. The whole operation will be directed from the Department of Agriculture. You will have a good deal of pull and drag between this board and the Department of Agriculture in relation to the carrying out of the regulations laid down here.

The Minister asked me am I not satisfied that such regulations are necessary. Of course I am satisfied that the regulations specified here are necessary, if we are to improve the standards in the presentation and marketing of wool. All these things will have to be tightened up. It is just a question of who should actually do it and who in the last analysis should be responsible. I have made the case that I propose to make for An Chomhairle Olla having this power and responsibility. Obviously, the Minister does not intend to accept it. He has indicated his attitude already in relation to giving power and responsibility to this board. He does not intend to give it. He has maintained that and has been consistent in that attitude throughout.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 11 agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Clinton

We have already commented at some length on other parts of the Bill on the setting up of this Comhairle Olla. We have had a long discussion as to the number of people to be appointed and the method of their appointment or selection. The Minister explained that he saw great difficulty in setting up a board otherwise than by his own direct selection. Again, we on this side of the House hold that this is the wrong way to get the co-operation in particular of the producers. If a scheme of this kind is to be satisfactory, you must have the wholehearted co-operation of the producers in particular. In fact, you must have the co-operation of all the people at the various stages between the production of the wool and the production of the final product in whatever form it takes. I disagree entirely with the Minister's view that it is not possible to set up a good and effective board by having people nominated by the various interests concerned in the wool business generally.

I have made a strong case for this already. I gave the Minister the example of the methods used in the setting up of the Board of An Foras Talúntais. I see no reason why this board could not be set up in a similar manner. The Minister made a statement on the last evening we were discussing this which has caused serious concern to some of the existing boards. At column 264 of Volume 235 of the Official Report, he said:

It is also true to say that some of our existing boards which have enjoyed almost complete autonomy are now seen to be breeding dictatorship which Government Ministers are accused of but never indulge in.

This statement has caused very serious concern. If the Minister feels that this type of board has in fact turned out to be a dictatorship, some of the boards will be extremely anxious that he should immediately set about having a sworn inquiry into the operation of the board. They are prepared for that; in fact, they are anxious for it. This is a statement with which I entirely disagree and we are very upset that the Minister should make it. In all fairness to these boards, the Minister appears to be breeding dictatorship.

An Ceann Comhairle

We cannot discuss boards on this section. We are concerned with An Chomhairle Olla and the methods of its establishment. We cannot have a debate on every board on this section.

Mr. Clinton

Only in so far as they are relevant to the section. In this section the Minister has set out to select whatever the number of members he decides. It must not be less than six. He tells the House that it will consist of three from the producers and three from the trade. This is the type of balance that is indicated. The Minister has not said that he will insist that it should have this sort of balance but this is open in the legislation before the House. He need only select six people. This is a dangerous board. The Minister is responsible for everything that happens in the production and the marketing of wool. Later on he provides for a levy to be paid by producers. He will set up the board and he will hand-pick these people. He will give the board no authority. This is a serious situation and I think the Minister should look very hard at it before he insists on going ahead with another board of this description where the producers have no guarantee of proper representation, where no safeguards are provided, and where the Minister can through a selected body do everything he likes in relation to it.

Mr. Blaney

I thought we had dealt with this the other evening but Deputy Clinton is still not convinced. I put it to Deputy Clinton that if what he has said is reasonable—I would not for a moment suggest that the Deputy would ever be in the position I am in but if it ever should come to pass—I would not in the slightest degree object to Deputy Clinton setting up this board in the way I propose to set it up, nor would I object to his having the freedom we have, in a way being tied as we are, by having not less than six, not less than three for the producers and three for the trade. If wool is selling well the Opposition almost claim they are responsible. If it is selling badly the Opposition keep hammering away at the Minister for Agriculture.

Now we come along with legislation in the hope, through the experience and knowledge put at our disposal by this committee, that we will produce a Bill with the intention of trying to make wool always a better commodity, better handled and better sold. Instead of there being an all-out welcome for this from Deputy Clinton, who has great interest in this matter, we find him carping and criticising in a way that does not make much sense.

In the last analysis the Minister for Agriculture takes the raps. He proposes to set up the board. He proposes to have it set up by him and nobody else. A good instance to cite would be that a few years ago butter was being sold and An Bord Bainne was selling it. Now there is a semi-autonomous board being set up and if it is not going well it is the Minister for Agriculture who is not doing his job. Deputy Clinton would like to have it both ways. I believe in taking the raps and I also believe in ensuring that if there are credits to come to the Minister for a good thing, as the man responsible for bringing it about he is entitled to some merit. There is nobody in public life, in Government or in politics who is entitled to carry the can, and at the same time when there is credit due or any merit that it should be given to somebody else. That is not the way of life and we are not being realistic in talking this way.

This is a Fine Gael approach that is well known. I have no doubt when a job is to be done under the aegis of this Department that the Minister for the Department and the Department should be the people who actually set about setting up and controlling the paraphernalia provided in order to do a better job. If we are setting up any mechanism or machinery to do the job, no doubt the man who is responsible for driving the coach should also be responsible for selecting the kind of coach he proposes to drive. This is what I propose to do and I have no doubt it is the right thing and if Deputy Clinton were ever equipped I would not take exception to his adopting the same approach. Were he to have the same ideas I have, I must say I would agree with him. If it should ever come to pass I think he would find that that would be my outlook in this regard, not only in regard to a wool board but to any other board as well.

On the matter of other autonomous boards he has mentioned and on something I said at a particular time, what he got was that I suggested that they were breeding dictatorship. Until the birth takes place I do not think there is any sense in christening the child. I propose we leave it at that for the moment.

Mr. Clinton

I am glad I opposed section 12 because the Minister openly admits that he is not setting up An Chomhairle Olla. He is providing himself with a coach he can drive and this is the way I saw it. He is providing a coach he can drive and nothing else and he says he can accept responsibility for it. That is poor consolation to the principal people concerned in this whole operation. The people I am concerned about are not the middlemen who are making money out of the primary producer. Everybody has to live and if the people in between provide a service I like to see them reasonably remunerated for that service. I would weight this whole legislation in favour of the producer and, as I see it, it is not so weighted. The Minister has not commented on that. I am opposing this section for the reasons I have given.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 13.

Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Clinton

Section 13 set out the functions of An Chomhairle. Already in the debate on this Bill I have objected to the fact that An Chomhairle will be really without power and without responsibility. They will be only an advisory body. They are to advise the Minister in relation to grades, prices, et cetera, all of the things about which it is intended they should give advice to the Minister. I submit that instead of giving advice to the Minister they should be carrying out these functions themselves directly. They should be able to go directly to the producers, purchasers, the exporters and say: “This is what we feel will get results and we want it done in this way because it is only in this way we will get results.”

I do not believe that the manner in which we are doing it will ever get results and I should prefer to see the Minister setting out to provide that this would be operated directly by the Department, because then we could pin the entire responsibility and the Minister could not come back and say: "We have a board and they have obviously failed to achieve this. There are a lot of experienced people on the board", and all the rest of it. I should prefer that we on this side of the House could say that the Minister or the officers of his Department had either succeeded or failed.

I should like to say now that I want to see this succeed because this has been a neglected industry for a long time and it is time something was done about it. In setting out the functions of An Chomhairle, a provision that has been left out altogether, and it is a pity it has been left out, is the lack of any reference whatever to the fact that one of the functions of An Chomhairle should be to promote co-operation in every aspect of the wool industry because if there ever was an industry that needs co-operation, where co-operation and co-operative effort would be effective, it is in the wool industry, and somewhere in these functions reference should have been made specifically to the place which co-operation should have in this whole scheme of things— that it should be one of the functions of this board to promote co-operation at every level of the industry.

Mr. Blaney

All I am afraid of is that Deputy Clinton, in his over-enthusiasm to oppose the Bill, is endangering the likelihood of its doing the good I believe it can do—that he is eroding by his opposition for opposition sake the goodwill he knows, as I know, exists for such a measure as this. It is something he should be careful about because he can carry it to the point where he could have the Bill passed into law and then arrive at the stage where it will not have done any good but where he, as the opposer of the Bill, will be capable of saying outside and coming in here and saying: "I told you this Bill would not work. You wanted co-operation for it but you will not get it. I told you so when it was going through the House."

If he hammers here long enough to the effect that this is not the sort of Bill anybody should co-operate with, it would be much simpler that we should scrap the idea of discussing this section by section on Committee Stage and that we should let it go to its final stages and then let him oppose it altogether. That would be a much better method than to kill a measure like this, to prevent its becoming effective if and when it comes into operation. As a matter of interest, surely Deputy Clinton must have noticed in the section now under discussion that of the six matters named as functions of An Chomhairle the first two are in relation to advising the Minister to do certain things and that the last four are matters An Chomhairle themselves will have as functions not in an advisory capacity but in a positive sense.

It is well worth bringing to the Deputy's notice that of the six functions so named, four are related to the competence and the jurisdiction of the board when they have been set up and that only two out of the six so named relate to advising the Minister —that the total overall description of the body being only an advisory board is not quite fair to the board or to the members thereof when the board ultimately become appointed. It is right that at this stage Deputy Clinton should have it spelled out for him that this is not, as he seems to think it should be, a wool marketing board as such in the fullest context of the description. That is not what it was intended to be and that is not what it will be. If that is what he really seeks, plus the suggestion of the autonomy he thinks is necessary for any board of any worth at all, I want to disillusion him at this stage by telling him it is not that sort of board, that it is not only an advisory board, as will be seen from the functions set out in this section. There are other matters of an onerous nature, too, which the board will have to perform and the success or failure of An Chomhairle and of the whole concept of An Chomhairle Olla as enshrined in the Bill will depend on the successful performance of these functions.

Though I agree that by all means we should give as detailed a criticism as possible of the Bill at this stage, I ask Deputy Clinton not to condemn the Bill in such a way that, even though it has gone through, his token resistance and opposition to the sections will mean that the Bill will be undermined and eroded after it leaves the Oireachtas.

Mr. Clinton

I wish to put it on the record of the House that from the outset of the debate on the Bill I have set out to try to persuade the Minister to improve it in such a way that it would be a better measure. My opposition has been for that reason only and I should like the Minister to appreciate that it is not token opposition. I am opposing the section because I have failed to get the Minister in any way to move in the slightest. He sees this as a perfect measure that cannot be improved. Unfortunately, that is the Minister's attitude.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate that we are discussing section 13 which deals with the functions of An Chomhairle and that we cannot discuss the whole Bill on every section as we go along. That would be repetition and totally out of order.

Mr. Clinton

I might say to you, Sir, that similar criticism of my opposition was made by the Minister and he was not called to order when he was making it. What goes for one side of the House should go for the other.

An Ceann Comhairle

We will go to the other side now and keep the discussion on the functions of An Chomhairle as set out in section 13.

Mr. Clinton

I want to stay with it and I hope the Minister does so in the future. On the functions of An Chomhairle, the Minister said that only in paragraphs (a) and (b) is it indicated that this is to be an advisory body. If he goes to the next page he will see that there is provision for consultation with the Minister but that the consultation must take place first. The Minister did not explain why it is right in paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) to give direct responsibility and why he could not give direct responsibility in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).

It is very difficult to understand, and this is not opposition for opposition's sake. I want to see this legislation succeeding in doing what it set out to do and for that reason I feel that this body, An Chomhairle Olla, should get some real responsibility and some real power in its functions. The only thing it gets real power and responsibility to do here is contained in subparagraphs (d), (e) and (f). Subparagraph (d) is "to provide or secure the provision of courses for the training of persons in the grading of wool"; (e) is "to consider, devise or implement methods to increase exports of wool"; and (f) is "to consider methods of securing the maximum use of home produced wool by manufacturers in the State." These are all very important matters and I am glad that it has been given, as part of its functions, these three direct responsibilities. My only objection is that it is not getting more responsibility. If this is opposition for opposition's sake, I do not see it as such.

Mr. Blaney

I really love the way Deputy Clinton goes about this: will I explain why I leave (d) (e) and (f) in section 13 to the board and why I will not leave them (a), (b) and (c)? Deputy Clinton did not tell us why I should leave them (a), (b) and (c). It was very easy to say why should I not give them (a), (b) and (c) because I have already given them (d), (e) and (f). In fact I thought at least he would have come in on the middle section there, which is (c). This is a function which says: "after consultation with the Minister, to fix a code of practice to be observed by wool exporters." After consultation with the Minister, they fix this code of practice, and yet that is lumped in with the two advisory subsections, as it were, as three things for the purpose of arguing by Deputy Clinton and he asks why I do not give those three to the board.

I think the House will fully appreciate that in fact there can be three elements taken in this. There is the advisory element covered by (a) and (b), the consultative element but nevertheless giving the power and authority after consultation to the board contained in (c) and in (d), (e) and (f) three remaining functions entirely within the competence and jurisdiction of the board. Personally I do not know, but if the Deputy has a view, surely he must accept that (c) really does not belong to the same category as (a) and (b).

Mr. Clinton

I have no objection to (c).

Mr. Blaney

Well, you did not say it, if I may say so. You said: why not (a), (b) and (c), the same as (d), (e) and (f)? The Deputy has no objection to (c). That is four of them he has no objection to. That is two to one in any parlance and even Deputy Clinton, I think, would be satisfied that that is not bad in a matter like this.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 14.

Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Clinton

I see no objection to section 14. I am in favour of any additional functions the Minister gives An Chomhairle Olla.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 15.

Mr. Clinton

I move amendment No. 17:

In subsection (1), line 17, to delete "The Minister" and substitute "An Chomhairle"; and in line 18 to delete "he" and substitute "it".

An Ceann Comhairle

We cannot have a repetition of debate on this particular amendment, which is similar to other amendments discussed previously. This amendment sets out that the words "The Minister" should be substituted by "An Chomhairle". We cannot have the same argument on every amendment.

Mr. Clinton

I cannot remember whether this amendment has already been discussed. This should be called the Meal Time Bill, not the Wool Marketing Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair pointed out that there were various amendments that could be discussed together but we cannot have repetition of debate.

Mr. Clinton

Can you tell us, Sir, whether in fact we have taken this amendment? If we have not, I agree with you we could indeed have taken it.

Mr. Blaney

Without entering into any argument about it, I think it was decided that these, being of a kind, should be discussed together but decided separately as we came to them.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, the Deputy may have separate decisions on these amendments. That has already been pointed out by the Chair.

Mr. Clinton

I agree with you, Sir, that this is so, but amendment No. 17, I think, was not included in the grouped amendments. I do not want to have any argument about it, except to say that it is not right to insist that I should not speak on an amendment that has not already been spoken on. I object to that sort of direction from the Chair.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair pointed out to the Deputy that there are many of these amendments which are similar to one another and to avoid repetition, you could have a blanket discussion on Nos. 5, 6, 8, 10, 13 and 14.

Mr. Clinton

Yes, but 17 was not included.

An Ceann Comhairle

No. 17 has been included, and by agreement. The Chair pointed out we could discuss Nos. 16, 17, 19 and 22 and there can be separate decisions on Nos. 16, 17 and 19—separate decisions but not separate debates. Is amendment No. 17 withdrawn?

Mr. Clinton

We might as well withdraw it as leave it in.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 15 agreed to.

SECTION 16.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 18:

In subsection (3), page 9, line 32, to delete "an abstract of the" and insert "a copy of those".

This amendment is for the purpose of securing uniformity.

Mr. Clinton

Could the Minister tell us why in the first instance "an abstract of the" rather than "a copy of those" was put in?

Mr. Blaney

If I were to seek to tell the Deputy that, I am afraid I would have to go back to those who couched this in the legal phraseology we have before us.

Mr. Clinton

I agree with the amendment, in any case.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 16 agreed to.

Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.

SECTION 19.

Question proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Clinton

I am opposing section 19 because I think it is quite wrong to make provision here for a levy. Again, I have to draw attention to the fact that we are setting up a body and we have not guaranteed, in the setting up of this body, that the primary producers will have fair representation on it. As I see it, any levy that is to be imposed here at any level will eventually have to be paid by the producer because it will work back to him. This is so in all lines of business. The primary producer is the person who has to stand the knock. I should like, before going very far on this, to hear how the Minister can make a case for a levy in relation to the operations of this Wool Board that he is setting up himself and that the producers have no say whatever in setting up. It is entirely his responsibility and he is retaining that responsibility for himself. He wants in addition to that to get the producers to pay the piper and he will call the tune. This is a very unusual piece of legislation. I hope the Minister will see that there is no place for a levy in this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Blaney

I think one of the matters we should keep in mind here is that this Comhairle is being set up for the purpose of improving and assisting or supporting our wool trade as a whole—in other words, to make it a better trade in whatever circumstance we may find ourselves. As time goes on there will and, indeed, there could be expenses that were incurred solely and simply in the extra duties of the board in the long-term interests of the producers of wool and all those concerned in the wool business, whether producers or traders. If this Comhairle is to work on that basis and make a fairly good job of it and at the same time it is a fairly costly operation, what is wrong with the idea and the principle that some of those who are gaining from the activities of this Comhairle contribute something towards its actual expenses? This is a fair and sound principle. It is one which has been enshrined in other legislation to do with boards and one which I think in the last analysis is a good, sound proposition in principle. As to the danger of its being unduly applied, applied in an unfair way or applied to a greater degree, this surely is a matter in which, as the Minister will undoubtedly be seen to carry the can, he will be answerable in this House and will be called to answer if any such levy should be introduced.

This is where you can tie up both ideas that it is a good principle to have those who benefit from the activities of the Comhairle, the persons we propose, to carry some of the costs, if, in fact, business is in a good, sound condition. At the same time, its imposition can be visited on the Minister, namely, the Minister for Agriculture in this case. And undoubtedly it will be visited on him, whether, in fact, it is justified or not. But for any Minister to come in here at any stage in future years and be answerable for a levy that was either too severe or was imposed by him when the trade generally was unable to carry the risk, any Minister for Agriculture who would wittingly put himself in that position and know Deputies could check it would in my estimation be sufficient to get rid of any feelings he may have in that matter on behalf of the producers or the trade.

Mr. Clinton

The Minister argues that this body is being set up to improve conditions in the wool industry, and in the long run, although he may not have used those words, to improve the income of the producers and, therefore, the producers should pay for the co-operation of those manufacturers. After all, if this Comhairle does a good job and succeeds it is reasonable to expect it should get costs. I look at it the other way and say that if this Comhairle set up by the Minister turns out to be a damn bad business and does not succeed in its aims, the Minister can still insist that they pay the piper even though the goods were not delivered, so to speak. Then he goes on to say that this is normal enough.

Nobody can say that the sheep industry is over-subsidised by the State at the moment. In fact, if this is regarded as a subsidy, as an additional subsidy, it is well deserved. We have sheep numbers dropping pretty rapidly at present. If we are going to keep the industry going at all we should be inclined to give it more rather than less assistance. If we are going on the one hand to set up machinery designed to improve it we should not be taking it back on the other hand and making those people pay for this.

Mr. Blaney

Of course, Deputy Clinton keeps saying in this particular instance it is only the producer who is being victimised. It may well be that levies may not be imposed on him or at that particular level. They may be applied to the people who trade in wool—in other words, the sellers.

Mr. Clinton

Is it not the producers who suffer at the finish?

Mr. James Tully

Of course, it is.

Mr. Blaney

Do not let us have this coalition. I would say to Deputy Tully and Deputy Clinton that they should look at this in the proper light.

Mr. James Tully

Do not let the Minister cod us by saying that he wants to help the producers. He knows that those people are paying for this

Mr. Blaney

We have Deputy Clinton coming in here and talking about this and now we have Deputy Tully——

Mr. James Tully

We come from the same parish.

Mr. Blaney

The only place there is any co-operation to be expected in future is between Labour and Fine Gael.

Mr. James Tully

We thought you were going to say between the farmers and the Minister.

Mr. Blaney

God help us if that is the sort of co-operation we are going to have.

An Ceann Comhairle

We should get back to the discussion of section 19.

Mr. Blaney

Deputy Clinton knows very well that I believe co-operation is a very necessary thing but what Deputy Clinton does not seem to believe in is the distinction in relation to co-operation at a price. I do not operate on the principle of co-operation at any price. I refuse to do this.

Mr. Clinton

I do not know where the Minister gets those ideas.

Mr. Blaney

Maybe the Deputy does himself an injustice in his expression of opinion from time to time but this is the one I appear to get. I hope it is not to be so but that is the way it appears up to now. If it is different from that I would be glad to know it. Apart from that, as I was saying when I was interrupted, about this matter that the levy need not be applied to producers as such; it can be applied, and will be applied, on sales by traders and it may well be that this might not be inequitable at all if it was related to the actual volume of sales rather than as a fixed sum, as it might well be on the different registered buyers at a different level. Those are things which will only arise if the levy comes to be considered to be applied, which is not yet. I am sure that if and when that time comes the Minister for Agriculture of the day will be responsible clearly and will be answerable in this House as he would be entitled to be and he will not have an opportunity, which is very often put forward by Opposition members, of saying that he has no function when, in fact, he will have a function. This is something the Opposition do not seem to grasp at all.

Mr. James Tully

You should tell Deputy Childers that.

Mr. Blaney

Deputy Childers happens to be one of the Ministers who has a number of boards in relation to which he can only say in reply to questions that he has no function because he has not. In this case what a glorious opportunity there will be for the Opposition to be able to question the Minister for Agriculture——

Mr. Clinton

And get no reply.

Mr. Blaney

——and not get the reply saying he has no function because in this legislation he has got that function. This is a new aspect of the game of question time that the Opposition could well think about for the future, and one in which they would probably find a great deal of happiness rather than feeling that they are being short-changed when told that a Minister has no function in relation to the day-to-day policy of experienced boards.

That is the situation in regard to this matter of the levy. If a business is going well and if it costs a great deal of money, there is nothing wrong in this provision being put in the Bill and enacted as law. If a happy situation arises in which they are benefiting from the activities of An Chomhairle, why should they not be asked to pay something towards the cost?

Mr. Clinton

The levy will not be put on unless it is proved that they are gaining.

Mr. Blaney

The Deputy should not try to confuse me: I did not say that. The Deputy knows I did not say it. I know I did not say it, and I am sure the records of this House will show that I did not say it, and I will not be provoked into saying it, if that is what the Deputy is hoping. This is the only subsidy which has ever been offered to these people. I am very happy to be associated with it. While they were in office, none of the Ministers of the Coalition did anything about it.

Mr. Clinton

Sheep numbers were higher than they are today.

Mr. Blaney

I thought they were all goats.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 20.

Question proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Clinton

This section is tied in with section 19 in so far as it sets up an appeals tribunal. If anyone wants to appeal against this levy there will be an appeals tribunal, but the Minister does not tell us what sort of a tribunal will be set up. Section 20 provides:

(1) The Minister shall make regulations providing for the establishment of a tribunal to determine appeals by persons assessed to any levy imposed under this Act and such regulations may include—

(a) provision as to the procedure to be followed on such an appeal...

Why is the procedure not written into the Bill? That is one objection. Surely we know what we have in mind in setting up a tribunal? I am asking the Minister why he has not spelled out the procedure and why he has not said what sort of a tribunal it will be. It is very hard to have any confidence in a tribunal set up in this way. Although we do not know what type of tribunal it will be, we are expected to pass legislation that will be binding afterwards, and the Minister can set up any sort of outfit to get any sort of result he wants. This is legislation which should not be passed in this or any other House.

Mr. Blaney

The Deputy does not seem to trust the Minister and that is a very bad mistake. That is the greatest error he could make.

Mr. Clinton

How does the Minister expect me to?

Mr. Blaney

The whole basis of this Bill——

Mr. Clinton

Is blind trust.

Mr. Blaney

——is that it is for the benefit of the wool trade as a whole. I was not forced to bring this in. I was not threatened that if I did not bring it in certain things would befall me. This is brought voluntarily before the House and I think that establishes the bona fides of our intention that it is for the benefit of the people who produce and handle wool. Deputy Clinton's suspicious approach is entirely at variance with the circumstances obtaining. Deputy Clinton is suspicious of everything we bring in here. He is suspicious of every line of this Bill as being some sort of a trap to take something away from the farmers. I think that is basically what is wrong.

When Deputy Clinton realises that my interest in the farming community and the sheep breeders is as great as that of any of his colleagues or anyone else—and that is the way it should be —he will appreciate that these things do not have the interpretation which he would put on them, that they are designed to help not to hinder, that they are designed to aid the sheep breeders and wool producers and not to put them out of business, and that there is no line in this Bill designed to have "a go" at these people rather than help them. If Deputy Clinton appreciated this, as on the face of it he now must, he would probably welcome the Bill in a way which would warm my heart. I have been long awaiting some welcome from Deputy Clinton for anything I brought in.

Mr. James Tully

I would be prepared to take the Minister's word that this is what he has at the back of his mind, but the trouble is that the Minister is Minister for the time being, and if he does not write into the Bill more information than he has already given, it appears as if he is trying to get this House to buy a pig in a poke.

Mr. Blaney

A sheep in a bag would be more appropriate.

Mr. James Tully

Yes, a sheep in a bag would probably be more appropriate. If everyone outside the House engaged in sheep rearing agreed with the Minister, I suppose we would have to accept that the Minister's scheme was intended to improve the lot of the sheep farmer.

Mr. Blaney

Practically all do.

Mr. James Tully

Practically all. There is a fairly sizeable volume of opinion outside the House that the Minister is introducing a Bill which will do quite a lot of harm.

Mr. Blaney

That is only Deputy Clinton's propaganda.

Mr. James Tully

Before Deputy Clinton spoke about it in this House, I got a considerable volume of correspondence—I was surprised—from a number of people engaged in sheep rearing. They do not seem to be prepared to trust the Minister.

Mr. Blaney

That was inspired.

An Ceann Comhairle

May I remind the House that we are on section 20 which deals with the setting up of an appeals tribunal? We cannot discuss the whole Bill.

Mr. James Tully

I am not trying to discuss the whole Bill. No amount of palaver from the Minister—which does not come very well from him; we are not used to it—will convince me and the sheep farmers that the Bill in its present form will do what he says it will. He is not prepared to give any more details than that a tribunal will be set up and that it will achieve what he claims it will achieve. The biggest trouble is that it is quite possible that, even if the Minister has the idea that everything will be grand, those who may come after him from his own Party may have the idea that in setting up a tribunal there could be a way of doing something for the boys. I am sure the Minister would never have hand, act or part in anything like that, but it has been known to happen. I am not satisfied that the present wording guarantees it will be done in the proper way.

The Minister substituted "sheep in a bag" for "pig in a poke", but I still stick to it that it is a pig in a poke which the Minister is trying to sell to us. In other words, the Minister wants a blind act of faith on the part of the Opposition in relation to this whole Bill. He went to the trouble of putting 28 sections into it. From the opinion he has just expressed, I do not know why he did not stop when he had finished the Title of the Bill as that would be far enough if we were to accept everything after that in good faith. The intentions of the Minister are more or less explained in the Title. We know the intentions of the legislation. If there is any purpose at all in providing us with 28 sections in a Bill, I think it should be detailed and should indicate what will happen.

Having criticised the Opposition all the time, the Minister then sat down without telling us about the provision for procedure. He does not tell us what the procedure will be. It should be simple to indicate what it will be in cases of appeal to this tribunal. The Minister does not tell us the types of people who will constitute this tribunal. He does not tell us how it will be set up. He does not tell us how it will carry out its functions. The Minister says, in effect: "I shall establish an appeal tribunal by regulation; I shall fix the procedure afterwards." It could be anything.

The Minister says we must trust him and have complete faith in him. He may be sitting on this side of the House sooner than he imagines and somebody else may be sitting over there and have to deal with this matter. In fact, somebody else in his own Party may have to deal with it. I think it is all wrong to expect that the House should make a complete act of faith in the Minister with regard to all the sections of this Bill.

Mr. Blaney

One of the things that should be appreciated is that, unless and until a levy order has been made, the need for this tribunal cannot possibly arise. If and when a levy order comes to be made, then the detailing of the system of tribunal, the hearing and its procedure, would, at that juncture, be appropriate to be made known and circulated so that those who would come under the levy would know where to go if they are not satisfied. What is here is a provision enabling this sort of thing to be set up subsequent to a levy order being made, if it ever comes to be made. It is fairly obvious, in that light, that the setting-out of anything further by way of detail in this section would be superfluous and might never be used. When and if the levy order comes to be made, it is only subsequent to that that this tribunal to hear the case would come into being or would be necessary to be brought into being. The time of the making of the levy order would be the time when this sort of procedural detail as to the tribunal, what they would do and how to do it, would be available and known. I think this House would feel that probably, in that light, it is less mysterious than was made out by Opposition speakers here. The complete acceptance by the Opposition, both Labour and Fine Gael—in one way amazes me and possibly in another way saddens me —their clamour for detail and for handing over of authority to govern to people who never will have to be elected, their complete acceptance by these devices and these statements that they will never be a government themselves, either collectively or individually——

Mr. Clinton

Are we discussing section 20 now?

Mr. Blaney

It amazes me and saddens me. God knows, it is true. This is the fact of the matter. You cannot have it yourselves. You have no ambition to be a Government or, if you have any ambition, you do not believe you could be one. Therefore, whittle away, for whatever motives you can present to the people, authority, with government to be given over to this, that and the other person, without having any responsibility to the electorate to whom we are all responsible individually from one election to the other.

Mr. James Tully

That story did not go down too well.

Mr. Clinton

It is all right to talk about section 20 as being only a vehicle to be used at some distant point in the future——

Mr. Blaney

A mini-bus.

Mr. Clinton

——and to say that if and when it is used, you can depend that it will be used fairly and correctly. The Minister did not say that when the time came for settling the procedure and for setting up the tribunal he would come back here for the power and authority for the machinery he will set up under this section. He wants it to be delightfully vague and to be so open as to mean nothing so that when he comes to use it he can do so in any or every way he feels it is to his advantage to use it. I think it is correct to say that it is not legislation at all and that the Minister could have stopped at the end of the Title and put in no more sections than the Title and say his intentions are good after that and would have to be accepted blindly by the people and the House. I am in total opposition to the section because of its vagueness.

Question put and declared carried.

Sections 21, 22 and 23, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 24.

Mr. Clinton

I move amendment No. 19:

In subsection (1), page 11, line 46, before "authorised" to insert "or An Chomhairle"; and in line 47, before "to" to insert "or An Chomhairle".

I assume, even before I stand up, that the Minister will accept this amendment. If he has any faith at all in An Chomhairle, he will put them in the position of having the same power as an officer of his Department. I just fail to see how he could reject this amendment. I am sure he sees the wisdom of including it. Section 24 says: "An officer of the Minister authorised in writing by the Minister to exercise the powers...." I am sure he would like, himself, to include in that the personnel of An Chomhairle.

Mr. Blaney

Could I possibly have from the Deputy the reasons he feels the members of An Chomhairle should be burdened, as it were, with this detail that is covered there?

Mr. Clinton

"Burden"? Privilege. I think it would be necessary to read this just to have it considered:

An officer of the Minister authorised in writing by the Minister to exercise the powers conferred on an officer of the Minister by this section may do all or any of the following things, namely:

(a) enter, inspect and examine at all reasonable times by day any premises in which wool is weighed.

Surely the members of An Chomhairle should have the right to do this thing if they are to do their job, if they are to be intimately in touch with what is happening in the wool trade? Surely they should not be impeded in their efforts or endeavours to find out and to know what way the trade is going generally? I fail to see why the Minister thinks that they should be debarred from giving this power, this authorisation to walk in and look at the premises and so on. I doubt now if they can go in at all if he does not give them this power, if the people object.

Mr. Blaney

Surely the Deputy is not serious? He talks about this as if it were some sort of God-given right that was there for the taking and that by not agreeing to do this, we were denying something that would be highly desirable for the future wellbeing of those concerned. That is not the case at all. As I said earlier, on page 34 the Report of the Committee on Wool Improvements at paragraph 138 said:

The Committee considers that it is a matter of convenience to arrange whether the registration of wool buyers, the licensing of exporters and the employment of supervisory staff should be undertaken by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Council. On balance, the Committee saw merit in their being undertaken by the Department.

These are the officers whom it is suggested that I should be empowered to authorise to enter the premises of people. They would be covered by "supervisory staff" in this paragraph of the Committee's Report. On balance, they believe this task would be better left to the Department than that the board should do it. This surely implies that if that is their view, the board members as such should scarcely be put in the position of doing it themselves by virtue of an authorisation under powers that might be put in here by amendment as suggested by Deputy Clinton. I do not see the relevance; perhaps the Deputy has some further angle on it that I do not yet understand and that may make a difference.

Mr. Clinton

I am quite serious about this. I see a situation arising under this legislation in which if I am a wool buyer and have to have premises of a certain standard and so on, surely in educating themselves, the Comhairle will want to visit these premises and see what is happening? But, as a wool buyer or exporter, I can tell them to get out and stay out unless there is some power like this contained in the Bill, unless they have the right in law to enter.

This is not opposition for opposition's sake, but can the Minister tell me where in the Bill they have a legal right to see for themselves at firsthand what is happening in these establishments? It is very necessary that they should go to see what is going on. I know it is most unlikely that they will be stopped by the various people concerned because they would naturally feel they were dealing with people who should be their friends but you could get the case where somebody would decide that it was better to keep them out, that they knew enough. I am not trying to force this amendment but only trying to help the legislation, and I cannot see what the Minister will achieve in opposing it. I do not think that paragraph 138 of the Report of the Committee on Wool Improvements is really relevant.

Mr. Blaney

The first thing that needs to be said is that you must look at the other side of the story. We can see, in the very charitable way we have of looking at things here, that there will be members of the board who will be traders, who will be producers and those who will be neither one nor the other, but, taking traders and producers, can the Deputy see any merit in giving to those members of the board who are traders the right, even as members of the board, to enter, inspect and examine at all reasonable times the premises concerned? It could be said by those who were so entered and inspected that they would have reluctance towards these inspections because some of the members would, in fact, be trade competitors. This is a reason one might first think of. Secondly, can the Deputy see any objection to these people, as a Comhairle, collectively particularly, or requesting a visit to any of these premises and being refused, being told to stay out, that they are not wanted?

Mr. Clinton

I have said that I do not, but I say they have no right in law to enter.

Mr. Blaney

That is right, but these are the supervisory personnel dealt with in the Committee's Report and that supervisory personnel, according to the Committee, which was a fair cross-section of the people in the business, recommended after full consideration that, on balance, the supervisory work had better be left to the Department's control. It is really because, in their wisdom, knowledge and experience, they thought it best that this arrangement has been devised. They must have had good reason for leaving this supervisory work to the personnel of the Department and authorising the Minister to do it in this Bill is only giving voice to what was recommended in that paragraph.

Without doubt, because of the natural tendency of people in the trade, there possibly might be fear of the right of a member of the trade, a competitor to come in and look over the premises and poke around, as and when he likes, while it would not be expected that a member of the Comhairle would be doing that for any ulterior purpose. What I am saying is that the other members who would not be on the Comhairle could well feel this was not something to which they should be expected to submit and therefore they might develop some antagonism to the members of the Comhairle or the Comhairle itself. That is something I am sure the Deputy would not consider desirable.

Mr. Clinton

I have drawn attention to what I think and I shall not pursue it further.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 20:

In subsection (1) (b), page 12, line 3, after "or" to insert "by".

This is merely a drafting amendment which was suggested by the parliamentary draftsman subsequent to the introduction of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 21:

In subsection (1) (b), page 12, line 4, after "or" to insert "relating to".

This is again of the same nature and was suggested as an improvement by the parliamentary draftsman.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 22 not moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 are cognate and may be discussed together.

Mr. Clinton

I move amendment No. 23:

In subsection (2), page 12, line 11, after "fails" to insert "without reasonable cause".

I hope the Minister will see the sense of accepting both these amendments. Subsection (2) of section 24 sets out:

If any person wilfully delays an officer of the Minister in the exercise of any power under this section, or fails to produce any record or other document which he is required in pursuance of this section to produce or refuses to give...

There could be some very good reasons in certain instances why a person might not be in a position to produce exactly what the Minister or his officers required on a particular occasion.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.