Vol. 260 No. 11
Subsection (4) provides:
Where a person is found to have an explosive in his possession or under his control, a member of the Garda Síochána or an inspector may require that person to give him all information in his possession as to how he came to have the explosive in his possession or under his control.
Does this give the inspector the same power as a garda, the power of arrest?
It gives the inspector power to ascertain whether it comes under the criminal law or under this Bill.
He has no power beyond the power to question?
It enables an inspector to question a person or a carrier who has explosives in his possession. The power of investigation must be extended to the garda for the purpose of establishing the line of demarcation as to whether it comes under the 1883 Act or this Bill. It applies in relation to many similar Acts.
In subsection (1) (b) it is provided that no person shall keep any explosive at any place except (a) in the licensed factory in which it is manufactured and (b) in a magazine licensed by the Minister for the storage of explosives. What regulations are there governing such type of magazines? I have memories of magazines being little concrete buildings out in the country with no guard on them and while there might be a steel door to prevent them being opened and a very effective lock, somebody with a pick-axe could get in the back way and take out anything that was in them. Is there any specific regulation?
A magazine and a store are defined as two different things.
They are called magazines.
They may actually be stores. A store is something which may contain up to a maximum of 4,000 lbs of explosives. After that it becomes a magazine. The regulations for a magazine will be stricter than for a store. The regulations are and should be fairly strict for both.
Take paragraph (c).
Places of storage.
Are any inspections carried out?
They are subject to the local authority and will be subject to the Minister for Labour as from the enactment of this Bill.
Will the Minister ensure that an inspection of every such store is carried out?
That is what the whole Bill is about.
The section does not say anything about inspections as far as I can find out. Will the Minister ensure that they are not allowed to keep explosives in places which could be knocked down by a child? I know of one store which children broke into and took away gelignite. That was some years ago.
That is what I would regard as the most important function in relation to the whole spirit of the Bill: to make regulations governing certain standards and by inspection to see that they are maintained.
Is that written into the Bill?
Ample provision is made throughout the Bill.
Does it say in the Bill that the stores are to be inspected?
They are all subject to inspection at any time.
Is it in the Bill?
It is.
To my mind it gives an inspector too many powers of inspection.
During the Second Reading Deputy Belton and Deputy Desmond referred to some power tools and the Minister gave an assurance that he would endeavour to put into the Bill some section to deal with them. I think it should go in under this section but I am not sure of that.
The Minister will have power to exclude anything from the provisions in the Bill or to define what may or may not be regarded as an explosive or a dangerous substance. We have had representations about Hilti power tools. These will be considered and so far as I can see they will be exempt.
Is this done by order?
There is a section in the Bill——
——that allows the Minister to make an order?
Exactly. It is section 19.
In section 2 an inspector is defined as "an inspector appointed under this Act" and Section 13 provides that "An officer of the Garda Síochána (including an inspector acting as superintendent) ..."——
That is an inspector of the Garda.
Garda Síochána is in capitals and "inspector" is not.
I think that an inspector in the Garda is not regarded as an officer.
Is it not very confusing to have "Garda Síochána" in capitals and "inspector" not in capitals?
If it were in capitals it would be more likely to be confused with being our inspector.
In section 2 "inspector" is defined and a capital letter is not used. In section 13 an inspector acting as superintendent is also not in capitals. This is confusing.
Exactly.
We could clarify it by saying "including a Garda inspector".
That would be better.
It is a very small point but I will take a note of it.
How will the Minister amend it? Is he looking for all Stages today?
Yes.
Can the House make an amendment?
It may not be possible to get all Stages today.
Could the Minister amend it?
If the House agrees.
Is there any objection to writing the words "inspector" and "superintendent" in capitals?
It is only drafting problem.
That is not quite correct. It is a drafting problem but it is an amendment which is a different thing entirely from what is written into the Bill at present. If the Minister wants to clarify it he will have to write in "including a Garda inspector". I would suggest that with the Chair's permission the House should accept that amendment. Then it would be regularised. The Minister can propose the amendment himself if he likes. It is not a question of getting an amendment accepted from us.
I was just wondering if accepting an amendment to clarify that point would hold up my getting all Stages of the Bill today.
The Minister can do it now. If the House agrees to accept it now the Minister can suggest what he thinks will clarify it.
I agree.
What is the amendment?
What is the form of the amendment?
I move the following amendment:
In page 7, line 1, to insert after "inspector" the words "of the Garda Síochána".
I would suggest using a capital "I" and a capital "S".
There was a suggestion during Second Stage of the possibility of having containers of different colours. Is this possible or feasible?
Suitable marking would include enabling us to do anything.
Even with colours?
Yes.
Since there have been so many allegations that explosives used in the North had come from this part of the country, is there not any way of marking the substances manufactured here? Explosives are manufactured in my own constituency. It is wrong that simply by putting a small mark on an explosives container people can purport to show that it came from the Republic when, as we know, in many cases it does not come from here.
We would not be responsible for that.
We should attempt to protect our good name.
This would be relevant to some other Act.
Gelignite is of different colours now. What is for the home market is, I think, white in colour while that which is for export is yellow.
I am afraid I do not know very much about it.
This Bill is related entirely to the safety of the personnel handling the substances.
I would like a little clarification on this. What is meant by the word "store" in this instance?
The place of storing.
A tank?
Yes.
An underground tank?
Yes.
Is proximity to houses to be taken into consideration? It is possible that if this regulation is to be enforced strictly there could be caused quite a considerable amount of trouble. It might be decided that, for instance, central heating units or indeed tanks of petrol, which we see often on the roadside, could be brought under this law?
Yes.
Is there a likelihood of that happening?
Regulations under this Act would have to have regard to the safety or otherwise of where substances are stored and, while we would not expect the Act to be pursued to an extent where it would upset what are satisfactory existing arrangements, it gives power to have changes made.
Would this apply to private houses where there are central heating units, sometimes of 500 or 600 gallons?
Fuel for central heating is not a petroleum spirit. Petroleum in the wider sense here covers all types of fuel but petroleum spirit is a spirit fuel and one of the sections that we have passed already defines this fuel.
Can the Minister say if this will affect domestic users of, say, petrol for lawnmowers or if it will affect farmers who keep tanks of petrol and diesel for farm implements?
Already there are regulations governing these. In relation to the storage of petroleum spirits for agricultural products, I think there is a limit of 60 gallons.
Section 20 deals with that but there should be a better way of describing it than to say that it means:
petroleum which, at normal atmospheric pressure, gives off an inflammable vapour at a temperature of less than 73º F.
This is a rather technical description for ordinary people to understand.
It is acceptable and there are means of defining it.
It is a pity there is not an easier way of defining it.
I think that most people can identify these things now. Regarding the question of storage, subsection (2) sets out exceptions to the requirements of subsection (1).
I cannot remember whether it is said anywhere in the Bill that highly inflammable liquid should not be kept within a certain distance of a naked flame.
This could be covered in a number of ways. By regulation we define what is a suitable place for storage.
It is not storage, but handling.
Subsection (2) reads that:
Regulations may impose duties upon employers, employed persons, occupiers of premises and other persons.
That is one of the regulations but there are others also.
Does the Minister propose to make regulations with reference to this?
Yes, definitely.
Therefore, the Minister has in mind regulations which would prevent a recurrence of a recent incident?
Yes. Otherwise, the Bill would be useless.
There are many useless Bills on the Statute Book.
The Bill is designed for that purpose.
SECTION 24.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 8, after line 41, to insert a new subsection (4) and Table as follows:
"(4) As and from the 1st day of July, 1972, a dangerous substance for the purposes of this Part includes any of the substances mentioned in the Table of Dangerous Substances appended to this section to which employees are exposed or which employees are expected to handle or dispense, except under conditions prescribed in regulations made by the Minister.
TABLE OF DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES
Demeton, dimefox, mazidox, amiton, dinoseb, disulfoton, D.N.O.C. endosulfan, endothal, endrin, mevinphos, mipafox, parathion, phorate, schradan, sulfotep, TEPP, azinphos-ethyl, azinphos-methyl, demeton-methyl, dichlorvos, ethion, mecarbam, oxydemeton-methyl, phenkapton, phosphamidon, vamidothion."
It is my opinion that section 24 is not being used in such a way that would ensure protection for employees. For many years my trade union have been making representations to various Ministers about the question of protection for employees handling certain substances. So far little or nothing has been done. The result is that a man, maybe with a young family, goes out spraying weeds and, because certain precautions which should have been taken are not taken, he contracts dermatitis or some other disease; after a while he has to stop working and is left drawing social welfare benefits for the rest of his life. This is apart entirely from the consideration that employees may be affected accidentally by the handling by other employees of these substances. It should be written into an Act of Parliament that more care and attention would be taken.
I attempted by way of question to have this matter raised here on a number of occasions. Each time I was told there was a special Bill being introduced to deal with agriculture and that it would include these substances, but when such Bills are introduced they are again omitted. A man engaged in agriculture is entitled to the same protection as a man engaged in another industry. This amendment is one way of ensuring that we shall not have a recurrence of the tragedies we have had, deaths, but more particularly injuries. I can cite for the Minister dozens of cases in which unfortunate people have had their skin or eyes injured, or their throat injured, through noxious fumes, simply because there was not a regulation laying down the way in which these substances should be used. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to accept the amendment.
I could not agree more with the Deputy, but I cannot accept the amendment just to include these substances specifically in the Bill. There is a huge list of substances to which the Bill must apply. The Minister has power under section 24 (1) to declare a substance to be a dangerous substance. I shall definitely keep Deputy Tully's list in mind. They are already contained in a 79-page list published by the EEC which, when we become members, we must accept along with the substances covered by this Bill. There may be many others from time to time which we must add. For that reason I am sure Deputy Tully will understand my reason for not accepting the amendment is that I want not merely to include them but to widen the scope to include everything that can possibly be added from time to time.
The whole purpose of this legislation is to bring up to date existing regulations in order to cover new chemicals and substances which are dangerous to health. I would draw the Deputy's attention to section 24 (3) which requires the Minister to publicise his intention of making an order declaring a substance to be a dangerous substance and to give interested persons an opportunity of making representations about them. We can visualise cases in which certain substances will be declared to be dangerous substances to which declaration there will be some opposition. Therefore, I should like to leave it open without specifying a particular list of agricultural insecticides or chemicals.
I take the Minister's point, but our technical people have gone through the list that was published and have taken out the ones which we know have been causing trouble here. We want to include those specifically and we do not care how many more the Minister includes afterwards. While I should love to think the Minister would make an order including all these other substances, I am not happy that he will. I am sure he will take that in the spirit in which I mean it. The provision to which the Minister refers, section 24 (3) gives an opportunity to people to object to these things being included, not to suggest that they should be included. The subsection says:
Before making an order the Minister shall publish in such manner as he thinks fit notice of his intention to do so and give persons desiring to make representations in relation to the proposed order an opportunity to do so.
Does he think that is for the purpose of people writing to him saying: "We agree with putting them on the list"? Is the object not for people to write to say: "You have included so-and-so, and we do not think it is dangerous"? Practically every one of the substances we have included has caused injury to members of ours due to the fact that they were not handled according to the regulations. The workers or the people who employ them did not realise they were handling dangerous substances.
The Minister should make a start on this; he can add anything he likes afterwards by order and we shall give him full support. I have asked so many times in this House about this but the attitude always is: "They are only farm workers. It does not matter." They are not included in safety regulations of any kind. Right down along the line there has been the same opposition to having this type of worker included. We must make a start somewhere and I suggest we make it on this.
The Bill lays down the procedure by which dangerous substances are identified, and I think it would be silly to put in a few and leave out the many that must be included later. These all relate to agriculture and they are exactly what are contained in the Northern Ireland agricultural regulations relating to poisonous substances. I do not see what point would be served by just putting in these substances and not including others at this stage. I can assure the Deputy we shall bear in mind the substances he has mentioned. In the collection of data for the purpose of draftig this Bill and drafting the regulations afterwards we have obtained copies of different regulations from other countries, including the North of Ireland agricultural regulations relating to dangerous substances.
If the Minister will give me a date before which he will introduce an order covering matters of this kind, I shall be prepared to withdraw the amendment, but not under any other circumstances.
We must make regulations and publicise them.
Yes.
Under the Bill we must list the substances, and the Deputy will get notice.
Must? When? It could be done in ten years time under this section.
When the Bill comes into force it will be meaningless if we have not defined the substances with which we are dealing.
All it says in subsection (2) of the section is:
An order under subsection (1) may apply any provision of this Act to the substance to which the order relates.
Subsections (3) says that before making the order the Minister shall publish notice of his intention. Subsection (1) reads:
A dangerous substance for the purposes of this Part is a substance which the Minister by order declares to be such on the ground that in his opinion it constitutes a potential source of danger to person or property.
It does not say if he will do it now or next year or in ten years time. If the Minister says: "It is proposed this year"—and that is giving him a long time to propose such an order, before 31st December next—so that at least we know it will be done this year, I am prepared to accept that. I am not trying to be unreasonable but I have had the same trouble with other Ministers in the House, and none of them has carried out any promise he gave.
As I said, the Bill provides that we must make regulations identifying the substances.
It does not say when the Minister must make them.
The Act has to be brought in by an appointed date. Is it not perfectly obvious that there would be no point in bringing in an Act dealing with dangerous substances without defining dangerous substances?
But you can do that. If it said that you must do it when you bring in the Act——
If I agreed to the amendment now, it would be the same thing as saying that I might never appoint a date for the coming into operation of the Act. There is no point at this stage in writing into the Act a set list of dangerous substances when there are hundreds of others to be included.
The Minister was not listening to me. What I said to the Minister was that I will withdraw the amendment if the Minister says that within a period after the Act has been passed he will bring in such a list. I do not even want him to write it into the Act. If he will give me an assurance that it will be done, I will accept it.
I will give that assurance.
Will the Minister say when he will do it?
Almost simultaneously with the bringing in of the Act.
O.K. Thanks very much.
I move amendment No. 2:
In subsection (2), page 9, line 20, to delete "three clear days" and substitute "twenty-four hours".
The purpose of the amendment is quite obvious. This is a small country. If firms that are employing persons were shut down for three days it would cause considerable hardship. If inspectors are to be stationed in Dublin, the distance they would have to travel to any part of the country is not great. I think that 24 hours should be more than adequate for an inspector to get to any part of the country for the purpose of inspecting premises.
Accidents involving explosives, petroleum or any dangerous substance, involving loss of life or injury to person or property, can be serious. In the case of minor accidents inspections would not normally be needed. By every test, the provisions here are more than adequate. I would not wish to be pressed to change the three clear days. We should let the provision stand. It is a trivial point.
I do not know why the Minister is so firm in regard to the three clear days. It is a question of getting an inspector from point A to point B. Is that not correct?
Yes.
This can be done in 24 hours, or far less than that. I do not understand the insistence on three days.
It is a question of communication also. There may be a written notice. Communication could take two to three days. It is not sacrosanct but three days is reasonable.
Would the Minister not agree that hardship could be caused to a business and to the employees of a business in three days?
We had regard to that possibility but I do not think it would. I do not think the Deputy should press the amendment. The three days will not involve serious inconvenience or hardship.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 12, line 21, to delete "to be attached to a licence" and substitute "under which licences may be granted".
This is a drafting amendment. It makes it clear that the Minister may by regulations prescribe conditions which must be complied with before a local authority or harbour authority could grant a storage licence. I should like to point out that the existing wording could be construed to mean that the conditions prescribed could simply be written into the licences. This would not give the same degree of control. The amendment actually meets the wishes of the Minister for Justice who is anxious to ensure that the Garda continue to vet applications for licences to hold explosives. It is intended to make suitable provision to this purpose in the regulations in relation to the licensing activities of local and harbour authorities. It is mainly a drafting change and does meet an important requirement. I do not see that there could be any objection to it.
With amendment No. 4 perhaps we could discuss amendment No. 5, as it is consequential.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 13, subsection (4), line 9, before "comply" to insert ", subject to any variation thereof under *section,".
A person might depend on getting a licence from the Minister under section 31 or from a local or harbour authority under section 32. If unreasonable conditions were laid down these would, in effect, amount to a refusal of a licence. The amendment is designed to provide a right of appeal to the High Court against a decision of the Minister under section 31 or a direction given by the Minister under section 33 and a right of appeal, under section 33, against a decision of the local or harbour authority, or under section 32. It provides for the further safety or an extension of the private citizen's right in that there is an appeal provided for, which we consider an extra safeguard. There are no undertones or other implications.
Does the Department of Justice come into this? Is the Minister for Justice saying that this provision should be inserted? Is that correct?
That is possibly correct. It is not specifically for that purpose.
It is in line with what is normally accepted practice for the protection of the citizens?
Normally accepted practice is right.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 13, before section 34, to insert the following section:
"(1) Where the Minister refuses to grant a licence or grants a licence on conditions with which the applicant is dissatisfied or gives a direction under section 33 (4) with which the applicant is dissatisfied, the Minister shall, at the request of the applicant, deliver to him a certificate stating the grounds on which he has refused the licence, attached the conditions or given the direction.
(2) The applicant may appeal to the High Court from the decision or direction of the Minister.
(3) On the hearing of an appeal from a decision of the Minister refusing the grant of a licence or granting a licence on conditions with which the applicant is dissatisfied, the Court may direct the Minister to grant the licence, to attach specified conditions to the licence or to amend or delete a condition attached to the licence, as may be appropriate.
(4) On the hearing of an appeal from a direction under section 33 (4), the Court may either confirm the direction or direct the Minister to vary it in accordance with the order of the Court.
(5) A decision of the High Court on an appeal under this section shall be final save that, by leave of that Court, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court on a specified question of law."
There is an amendment to amendment No. 6, in the name of Deputies P. Barry and P. Belton.
I move amendment No. 6:
In subsection (1), page 14, before paragraph (c), to insert the following paragraph:
"( ) where he has reasonable cause to believe that at any premises an offence under this Act has been or is being committed, to use force where necessary in order to enter the premises, provided he is so authorised by a warrant of a Justice of the District Court (which such Justice is hereby authorised to issue upon reasonable ground being assigned on oath) or, if it appears to him to be a case of emergency and that the delay in obtaining a warrant would be likely to endanger life, without being so authorised;".
This paragraph, which was taken from section 73 of the 1875 Act, empowers an inspector to use force, if necessary, to enter any premises where he believes an offence has been or is being committed.
In the normal way he must first get a warrant from a district justice but in an emergency situation, where life might be in danger if there was a delay in getting such a warrant, he could proceed without one. This amendment is required to meet the point made by the Minister for Justice. The exact function and power of the Garda under paragraph (b) are not clear in that "serious obstruction" is not defined. It is considered that a provision of that kind will enable a garda to arrest if necessary anyone who tries to prevent an inspector from entering a premises for the purpose of carrying out an examination. This defines something which was not clear. The amendment itself is self-explanatory.
In order to keep the matter in order, will Deputy Barry now move his amendment to the amendment? That must be disposed of before we deal with the Minister's amendment.
I move the following amendment to the Minister's amendment:
After "authorised" in the last line to add "provided that he is accompanied by a member of the Garda Síochána".
From what the Minister has said I gather he considers this point is taken up by subsection (b) of section 39. To allow an inspector who is a civil servant in the Department of Labour to enter a premises without a warrant and without an official or officer from the Department of Justice extends the powers of the inspector too far. I can see the point that it might not be easy to get a warrant at night time but there is a garda in every part of the country. The fact that the inspector was accompanied by a garda would offer further safeguards and give some control over the inspector.
I have no particular desire to give this power to inspectors, nor did they require it. I would not be too opposed to the amendment except we must allow common sense to prevail here. We know that normally the inspector would be accompanied by a member of the Garda Síochána; one could hardly visualise some exceptional situation or circumstances in which he would not be accompanied by a member of the Garda Síochána. However, if such circumstances arise I think the inspector should have the power. Normally he would be accompanied by a garda and I do not consider the Deputy's amendment is necessary.
If the Minister cannot visualise such circumstances there does not seem to be much point in the subsection. Certainly I cannot visualise any circumstances where an inspector could not get at late notice a member of the Garda Síochána to accompany him.
I have told the Deputy that normally he would be accompanied by a member of the Garda Síochána. Although it may be difficult to visualise a situation in which he could not get a member of the Garda it might occur and the inspector would have the necessary power. I think that provision is worth retaining.
I would be satisfied if the Minister could tell me that some situation arose in the past which has prompted the necessity for a subsection such as this.
I am not sure if it happened in the past but on balance we should decide to leave it as it is. I do not think this extra precaution is likely to be used but one could visualise a doomsday situation in which it might be necessary. This power is not likely to be abused; in fact, it is not a power the inspectors wish to have but, at the same time, I think we should leave it. Having read all the other sections, the Deputy will agree that the inspector would normally be accompanied by a member of the Garda. I would ask the Deputy to withdraw his amendment.
I withdraw my amendment but I am not satisfied that something has happened which has caused the Minister to consider such a provision necessary. However, if the Minister wants this provision I think it is wiser to let him have it.
I think all of subsection (1) (f) is taken from the Factories Act, 1955. However, I should like the Minister to explain why the wording of (1) (f) has been changed from the 1955 Act. Section 94 (1) (f) states:
to examine, either alone or in the presence of any other person, as he thinks fit, with respect to matters under this Act, every person whom he finds in a factory, or whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be or to have been within the preceding two months employed in a factory, and to require every such person to be so examined and to sign a declaration of the truth of the matters respecting which he is so examined;
The words the Minister has substituted are not as clear as the original Act. Section 39 (1) (f) states:
for the purpose of any examination or inquiry under this section to require any person whom he finds on any such premises, or whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be, or to have been within the preceding two months, employed at the premises, to answer, in the absence of persons other than a person nominated by him to be present and any persons whom the inspector may allow to be present, such questions as the inspector thinks fit to ask, so however, that no answer given by a person in pursuance of a requirement imposed under this paragraph shall be admissible in evidence against him in any proceedings;
The words used are "in the absence of persons other than a person nominated by him". Does the word "him" refer to the inspector or to the person being examined? The section also refers to "any persons whom the inspector may allow to be present, such questions as the inspector thinks fit to ask, so however,...". Is that legal terminology that makes it more clear for the courts and the lawyers to interpret? To me that paragraph is confusing. I cannot see what improvement it is on the Factories Act.
It is an addition to the powers provided under the Factories Act, 1955, and the Mines and Quarries Act, 1965. If the Deputy reads the latter Act he will see that this present subsection has been taken from that Act.
Does the Minister mean the entire section 39?
No, I am referring to the addition.
Paragraph (f) is in the Factories Act also.
There is more in it than in the Factories Act.
I am sorry but I cannot see what the Minister refers to as an addition.
It incorporates provisions in both Acts.
With regard to the words: "in the absence of persons other than a person nominated by him", can the Minister state if this refers to the inspector or to the person being questioned? Has the person being questioned any right to have other people present?
It would not be the inspector. I think that is fairly obvious from the preceding paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). Take (e):
To require any person whom he finds on any such premises to give such information as it is in his power to give as to who is the occupier of the premises;
It is a question as to whether the person might be nominated by the occupier or substituted by him. Obviously, the person referred to is the person occupying or owning the premises. I do not think there would be any legal difficulty in defining "him" there.
I think in the wording it could refer to the inspector but it has probably been decided in the courts if the Mines and Quarries Act, which is not referred to here, has come before the courts on any occasion. It has probably been decided to whom the "him" refers. I did not know it came from the Mines and Quarries Act.
It is definitely from the Mines and Quarries Act.
I did not know that. I thought it was from the original Factories Act.
Where the vessel is a foreign-owned vessels, could the Minister say how he would proceed against the master? Would it mean impounding the vessel and its consignment? I take it this must be done while the vessel is in port and that it could not be proceeded with if the vessel were to leave port and remove itself from the limits?
Why not?
Because of the difficulty of impounding a vessel which tries to leave.
If it is within territorial waters.
Provided it was in territorial waters.
We are not concerned with that, are we?
If the offence was committed while it was within territorial waters.
Is it the Deputy's point that we would not be able to proceed against a foreign vessel?
Yes. If there was an explosion in a port and the vessel was able to leave, how could the Minister proceed against it once it had left our waters?
This section actually provides exemption for the carrier or the owner of any vehicle or master of any vessel prevented from complying with the Act through the fault of another. He would be exempt from any penalty and the person at fault would be liable to the penalties to which the carrier would otherwise be liable. It is somewhat like the previous section to which we referred. I do not think that there is any difficulty at common law in regard to the prosecution of a person found to be in breach of the Act in our harbours.
Subsection (2) says:
The receptacle containing anything so forfeited may also be sold, destroyed or otherwise disposed of in like manner as its contents.
Would that also apply to the big petrol tankers we see nowadays? Would they come within the definition of "receptacle"?
The section gives the Minister power to dispose of anything forfeited by court order. That could be anything.
Including these big lorries worth about £10,000?
If they were in breach and so found by the court, I would be selling them off cheap.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 21, before the first entry, to insert:
|
17 & 18 Vict. c. 103 |
Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854. |
Section 56 and, in the nineteenth paragraph of section 72, the words “or throws or sets fire to any firework,”. |
These are appeals or references in old local government legislation which the Department of Local Government brought to our attention. This is simply a tidying-up operation at the request of the Department of Local Government.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 21, before the sixth entry, to insert:
|
61 & 62 Vict. c. 37 |
Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898. |
Section 6 (c). |
I wish to thank the House for the expeditious passage of the Bill. This is an important piece of legislation which requires the making of a number of regulations. Any regulations made will be laid before the House. It is essentially a Bill that requires continuing attention in reference to substances that may not now be on the market but which may become available, and the Bill is drafted in such a manner that will enable us from time to time to include any substance that may be regarded as a danger or a hazard to health.
That is why I thought Deputy Tully's amendment was not all-embracing.
