I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, after line 51, to insert the following:
"(e) provided always that such revocation or suspension may be appealed to the High Court."
The amendment was not tabled because I had no confidence in any Minister but on the basis that a citizen should have a right of appeal. Some legislation that came before the House from the Department of Communications recently, for instance, the Canals Bill, was amended, the Minister accepting an amendment of mine. This amendment proposed to give the citizen another bite at the cherry if he or she is not satisfied with the decision of the Minister. Other suggestions have been put forward by professionals in the field about a special tribunal — some of my colleagues may speak about that suggestion — but I want a provision that the person who applies should feel that there is an avenue open for him or her to appeal to an independent tribunal. All too often people who fail for perfectly valid reasons when dealing with Departments resurrect all types of accusations against the Minister. They say political influence was brought to bear or that some official in the Department would not give the person a licence if he or she were applying until Tibb's Eve. Everyone in public life is familiar with that kind of thing.
I want the appeal to be to the High Court. It is necessary to have such a safeguard. The amendment proposes to put in a new paragraph in substitution for subsection (3) of section 24 of the Principal Act. The wording of this section is provocative because it suggests that the Minister may at any time on his own motion and at his discretion revoke or suspend for such period as he shall think proper a merchandise license:
(a) on the ground that, in his opinion, there has been a breach of or a failure to observe or comply with a condition attached to the licence,
(b) on the ground that the holder has been convicted of an offence (whether under this or any other Act) in relation to the business to which the licence relates or a vehicle used in such business,
(c) if the holder ceases to comply with any relevant requirement specified or referred to in regulations under the European Communities Act, 1972, or
(d) on the ground that, in his opinion, there has been a failure to comply with a relevant provision of this Act or of regulations made thereunder.
The Minister is acting as a kind of judge and jury for the EC and I do not think it is healthy that this subsection should stand without giving applicants recourse to some preferably outside authority. The Bill refers to "regulations made thereunder". That covers a very wide field.