Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Feb 1926

Vol. 6 No. 9

STATISTICS BILL, 1925—SECOND STAGE.

It is with great regret that I find myself compelled to object to a Government Bill almost in its entirety. My objection comes under two main heads. I say this Bill makes possible the collection of excessive statistics. It also makes possible undue interference with the liberty of the subject. It seems to me to indicate a belief in the regeneration of the country by means of statistics, or, at all events, by the use of statistics by the Government and by interference in every kind of private, semi-private, or commercial endeavour. It seems to indicate that the interests of the community at large will be served and that the country will benefit. In the light of such experience as I have, I have the most profound disbelief in both. The Government is a combination of individuals, and, no doubt, is representative of the people, as it is duly elected and more or less represents them. It is possibly a collection of wise individuals who are possibly actuated by the best of motives, but in matters of this kind we ought not only to consider the present but the future, and it is most undesirable to have a thing which would enable a different set of men with different interests to do things very much contrary to the interests of the nation at large. However wise members of the Government are, the interests of a highly developed community are so diverse and complicated that it is impossible for any Minister or for the Government as a whole to know as much in any one field of endeavour about a particular business as the people actually engaged in it who have made a special study of it.

Hitherto, powers to acquire statistics have, I think, although I do not consider myself an authority on the subject, been taken by Acts referring to one kind of occupation or problem or to a group of kindred occupations or problems. We begin by the simplest cases, such as Census Acts and Registration Acts, which are obviously necessary or justifiable. Then you come to a more debatable kind of legislation requiring statistics from individuals such as joint stock companies Acts. They are for the protection of shareholders and the investing public, just as Factory Acts are for the protection of employees, and both of those, though more debatable, are, in the main, justifiable. When powers have been obtained for that kind of thing, the powers of the Minister have been actually defined in each case in the Bill. They have been restricted to specified appointments for reasons given.

When legislation is, so to speak, on a narrow front like that, there is one great advantage when one thing is taken at a time. It gives full opportunities for discussion and adequate criticism because attention is concentrated on the particular subject for which statistics are sought; it is therefore subjected to the full light of day, and more or less detailed reasons have to be given as to why those powers are sought. Any restriction on the liberty of the subject or the giving of unreasonable powers is much less likely to go through, because the whole thing can be fully considered. This Bill seems to me to short-circuit that kind of thing altogether. Once passed, a Minister can practically ask anything for any purpose and there is no further opportunity of criticising an action of that kind or for the putting of any reasonable limits to any demand.

That is one aspect. The other is the interference with the liberty of the subject. The powers taken appear to me to be hardly defined at all. They are, to all intents and purposes, unlimited. The provisions of Clause 16 would appear to give some protection, but when one goes into them they really do not, and it seems to me almost anything that is arbitrary and unnecessary can be done. The Minister must define the nature of the statistics which he proposes to ask for, but he need not justify them or seek further powers. He can go on from the Bill. The instruments through which those powers are to be exercised are not only Civil Servants but every other person who is at the time being employed in or about the extraction of the statistics. That opens the door more widely. You are not even confined to the activities of Civil Servants in making inquiries about your affairs. Anyone might be appointed for a specific purpose, and then we are subject to no control whatever.

It seems to me the Bill renders possible—I do not say it aims at it—the abolition of privacy in private or semi-private concerns. There is a provision in Clause 11 that an officer may ask for any record or document or for any written or verbal information. I do not want to discuss a serious measure in any frivolous frame of mind and I do not intend to make the suggestion I am going to make in any frivolous frame of mind. As a matter of fact, these words cover such extreme demands as the demand from a man to hand over his bank passbook, or a doctor's case-book may be asked for. The records of competitive businesses may be asked for. Questions may be put to doctors and solicitors about their clients. It also appears to me that individuals may be put to expense in making returns or disclosing documents. Sometimes the discovery of documents takes a great time and entails great expense.

Now there are certain safeguards about providing secrecy, but it seems to me that no safeguard, no matter how carefully devised, would be able to tackle this matter of preserving secrecy because it would be extremely difficult to prove that any civil servant, and impossible to prove that any man engaged for that purpose and who is not a civil servant, had disclosed information that might be to the detriment of people in their private affairs. It would be impossible to prove that a civil servant or other person had disclosed such information.

Apart from the general issue, I have had myself twenty years' experience in statistics, on a fairly large scale, and that experience has taught me to believe that there is a great tendency to have too much statistics, even in private business. There is a much greater tendency to have too much statistics, rather than too little. With regard to statistics that I am in the habit of being asked for by Governments, I can only give my personal opinion, arrived at after considerable experience, that many of these statistics cost a great deal of money to compile and never serve any useful purpose afterwards. We have no assurance that the very wide power sought under this Bill will be used wisely and moderately. No doubt that is the intention, but there is no guarantee that we shall have a continuance of such intention as that.

Life is short; one Government succeeds another, and you never know who you are going to have handling the tremendous powers contained in this Bill. It would have a serious influence if misused and it would render possible bureaucratic authority of the most complete kind, and, in my opinion, it would constitute a grave interference with the liberty of the subject. I have looked through the Bill with a view to seeing whether useful amendments could be suggested which might modify the dangerous possibilities of it, to which I have called attention, but I almost despair of being able to do so. Wider, and, perhaps, more thorough consideration, and more time, may enable us to do so. I feel compelled to criticise the Bill in its entirety and, holding the views I do about it, I feel I am justified in doing so. If any of us feel, very strongly, that a thing is not in the interests of the community, it is our right, and our duty to oppose it. I think this Bill is a very dangerous measure, and I hope it will be found possible by wiser and more experienced heads than mine to bring about some modification of it which will render it less so.

I do not intend to oppose this Bill, because parts of it are very necessary, but I do agree, and I think everybody who has anything to do with permanent officials will agree, that all sorts of figures and returns are asked for which are really quite unnecessary, and which only merely employ officials adding up lines and columns of figures, and putting the results at the foot, and the matter does not go any further.

I happened, at one time, in the West of Ireland, to see an experimental oyster-bed run by the Department. The official gave me a good many oysters, and then he showed me a book of considerable size. I asked him what he entered into it, and he said, "The deaths that occurred amongst the oysters." I asked had he many deaths, and he said "Yes, thousands and thousands." We went to the place where this happened, and we found a sort of little bay into which sewage ran. Why that place was selected for an oyster bed it was hard to see, but the result was that the oysters were dying by the thousand. They were thrown aside when they died, and they were counted, and totalled up, and the results were carefully compiled and put into pigeon holes, where they remain possibly to this day. There were a whole lot of officials engaged in this employment, and the only thing I got out of it was a very good feed of oysters. No doubt statistics have to be got and are very necessary for certain purposes.

If the Minister for Industry and Commerce has all the powers that Senator Colonel Moore seems to have proved he has, then I do not really see why he should introduce this Bill at all. I understand, though I have no official reason for saying so, that the purpose of this Bill is the taking of a census. It has not really been discussed at all. No notice has been taken of it in the newspapers, and it comes, to the generality of us, without any previous information or warning. I have read the latest copy of the Bill, which, I think, was passed by the Dáil a few days ago. Now, I am quite anxious to help the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the matter of getting a census. It is a useful thing. There can be no objection to the taking of a census in the ordinary way, but it seems to me that this Bill is going to create a new set of officials. Some people think that the world in the future will be happiest when a quarter of the population are officials and the other three-quarters are busily engaged in supporting them. I think the fewer officials we have the better. This Bill seems to me to make for more officials. It proposes to enable the Minister to collect, and publish, statistics relating to any matter affecting the general economic and other activities in Saorstát Eireann. That is a very large order, and it might be that if inquiries of this sort were started they might not end, at all events in our time. It is a very wide and very general definition, but, I suppose, it is considered advisable to have a wide and general definition. Bearing that general purport of the Bill in view, we come down to what I call the coercive clauses. The coercive clauses of this Bill are rather strong. I am afraid they open up a rather unpleasant vista before the public generally, provided, of course, this Bill is passed into law.

Section 7 says that every person is required to furnish the officer of statistics, in writing or verbally, with the information required, and to answer any question asked of him by such officer. That opens up, I think, a rather appalling prospect. When we go on to consider who are those people who are going to cross-examine the public, we find that the officers of statistics include every officer in the Civil Service, and include every person for the time being employed in the collection of statistics. People might come to one's house in the middle of the night, and they might say they were authorised to come by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to collect statistics. They might show some kind of authority. I am not clear what kind of authority these people are going to produce. They might come to a person's house and they might refuse to go without levying blackmail, or they might take away with them some of the family plate, and so forth.

I am afraid that preliminary proceeding is rather wide and indefinite. Then under Section 13 the Minister is given power to publish statistics and to compel any person to fill up schedules or other documents, but these schedules or other documents shall not be published without the consent of such person. That may be all right, but that section only deals with written information. There is a further section which says that people must answer any questions that the so-called collector of statistics chooses to put in verbal interrogatories. There is no guarantee that the report of these questions and the answers to them will not be published. The Minister says he will not publish any schedules, statistics or forms filled up, but he does not bind himself not to publish the answers to these verbal interrogatories. Further on the Executive Council is called in. I would have thought the Executive Council has quite sufficient to attend to without bothering its brains about the collection of statistics more than it can help. That Council may transfer the powers and duties under this Act to any other Minister in addition to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I presume if the Executive Council likes to go in for labour sharing it may transfer all its powers to the Minister for Industry and Commerce under this Bill.

Further, the Bill goes on and refers to the establishment of a Statistical Council, and that Council can appoint all sorts of officers who may ask for all sorts of information. We are not given much information; in fact we are given no information whatever, as to who will be the persons occupying the very important positions of members of the Statistical Council, and who are to be given these very far-reaching powers. Then the Minister for Industry and Commerce, supposing that the poor man is overworked, as I am quite certain he is bound to be under this measure and the other Acts he has to administer, can arrange that any other Minister in charge of any branch of the Civil Service may collect the statistics for him. If that sort of arrangement goes on between the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Executive Council, the whole of the Civil Service, and the Statistical Council, I do not think there is very much hope for the person who is cross-examined that the information he may give, either written or verbally, will be regarded as private. I think it will be anything but private. It is more than likely that matters people do not want to have known about their family affairs, or the condition of their business, and their competition with their various rivals, will become common property.

We shall hear from the Minister what is at the back of the Bill, how far the alarm which it is likely to create is justified. I think it would be much better to refer this question to a Select Committee to go into it quietly and reasonably. I do not suppose the matter is of very urgent importance, but no matter how urgent it may be it raises too serious questions for us or any other person to dispose of in the course of a few minutes. I think it is a matter which would require serious consideration, and, therefore, I move that it be referred to a Select Committee to report to this House and to suggest amendments.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I do not think that is in order unless and until the Bill is read a second time.

I would suggest, with a view to expediting the passing of this measure, that the Government, in the course of their remarks in the debate, might tell us what they think of this proposal with regard to referring the matter to a Select Committee. It might not take long, and the Committee could be a small one. Questions of such importance are raised in the measure that I think it would be well to refer it to a Committee in which the public would have confidence, and which might suggest reasonable amendments.

I support the Second Reading of the Bill. With the general principle of statistical information I am in complete accord. I cannot see how the Government can conduct legislation advantageously to the community without having complete possession of facts, beginning with the various subjects mentioned in this Bill. There are nine or ten headings under which they say they require statistics. Some of us who have been looking into the question of statistics are satisfied that no statistics are available on these matters and that there should be. I think unless statistics are available that legislation which may be necessary cannot be wisely or properly carried out. A great deal has been said about the individual and his rights. I do not think an individual should be protected as regards those rights if they are against the interests of the community as a whole. Senator Bagwell has great fear that the accounts of firms may be looked into, and that thereby an injustice would be caused to a particular firm, or it may be to individuals.

I cannot see, from my point of view, that any man whose house is in order ought to have any objection to disclosing to the Government for the purpose of the community the condition of his house. If his affairs are conducted in a worthy, just and orderly manner he can have no fear, to my mind. It is only those who conduct their business in a manner against the interests of the community who can have such fear. In my opinion this Bill should get a Second Reading. It is open to us at a further stage to discuss it in detail. I have endeavoured to go through the various clauses, and very stringent safeguards are embodied in the Bill to prevent the disclosures which were suggested during this debate.

Persons are liable not only to heavy fines—everybody connected with the obtaining of these statistics is liable not only to heavy fines but imprisonment in addition to the fines if found guilty of any disclosure. Surely it cannot be suggested that any responsible man—and I am quite confident that the Government would not put any man in such a position but a man of repute— will reveal what he has been told by the people from whom he is collecting the statistics. Surely it can hardly be suggested that any man of repute will reveal such information and do it at the risk of a term of imprisonment extending to six months. I think this is one of the Bills which should be welcomed. Amongst many Bills which have been introduced here I think this is probably one of those which would contribute most to the advantage of the community. I shall certainly support the Second Reading of the Bill.

I was rather surprised at the tone of the criticism which has been urged against this Bill. The criticism, as I understand it, has fallen under three heads. The first is in relation to the introduction of a measure of this sort which has the appearance of effecting a sort of revolution in our legislation. The second objection is the danger of having information submitted to officials which may not be regarded by them as confidential. The third is in respect of certain details which are in the measure and which give it the character of being almost an omnibus Bill for the purpose of gathering statistics. Now I should have said that as to the third, the objection has been constantly urged and urged every time with greater feebleness, that while people are satisfied with the present political control of the State, there are dangers in the future with regard to that political control. Now no government and no individual can give any guarantee with regard to that except one—the greatest and best guarantee that can be given— the sound common sense of the people. The people are not devoid of sound common sense, and there is no fear whatever that either now or in the future they will return as representatives in their Parliament people who will not have a keen appreciation of the needs and necessities of the State or people without general capacity to run the country. On that heading I think that the continued reiteration of fears on that score are an indication of nerves and they are not creditable, certainly not creditable to this Assembly which ought to represent the stable, sensible, sane common sense of the Senators.

Now with regard to the first objection to this measure, I have to say that this measure is practically on a par with the same legislation which has been passed in South Africa, Australia and Canada. Was it necessary in those countries? The Governments in charge of the different States I have mentioned considered that a measure such as this was essential. Well, we are either a lot better or a lot worse if we do not want it. Our commerce, our industry, everything connected with the country must be in such absolutely perfect condition that such information as this would be superfluous. If we are not in as good condition commercially as they are, apparently the need here is even greater than the need there for this information. Senator Bagwell in complaining of the extent of the measure admitted, at once, that he found himself in a difficulty in suggesting an amendment. Immediately we commence to put in an amendment limiting its scope we are apparently going to widen its scope in certain matters. The person who is to be appointed as official statistician is the person upon whom will devolve the responsibility for collecting this information, useless information, as suggested by Senator Colonel Moore. He did not inform us whether the particular oysters that he consumed were included in the death statistics of the last year or how they were disposed of. I do not know, but it is too serious a matter to trifle with in this way.

The Government does not lightly enter into such a measure as this without realising, first, the necessity, secondly the experience of other countries in regard to it, and, thirdly, the safeguards which are essential in the interests of commerce and the conduct of business with regard to information that would be given being regarded as confidential. One might just as well stand up here and say the condition of affairs in this country is such that one's business is going to be known if one goes to a stockbroker, if one goes to a banker, or if one goes to a solicitor, and that one's illness will be known to everybody if one goes to a doctor. What are the examples of any breach of confidence on the part of those people? I have not heard of any. I do not know of them. I think I heard of no breach of confidence on the part of Government officials in the discharge of their duties since I became responsible for public administration in this country. It is a reflection on the whole Civil Service if from this assembly it is to go out to the public that there is a danger that persons who have taken an oath of secrecy may disseminate through the entire State any information given to them in the discharge of their duty.

One of the responsibilities of the Oireachtas is the introduction of legislation and certain administrative matters come under its control. Certain statistics are necessary in order to enable sound judgement to be formed on all those matters. This is the best known method of getting that particular information. It is not revolutionary as compared with legislation in Canada, Australia or South Africa, which, if compared with that of the Saorstát, would be called revolutionary. Still other means must be devised. Up to this we have not heard of any sound amendment being put up which would not weaken or destroy the measure which is before the Seanad for consideration now. That statistician is a person upon whom a very big responsibility will lie. In common with every other Government department the expenses of this new department will be a matter for the consideration of the Oireachtas. Every measure which is introduced is watched for its effect, is watched for its results. If the results are not satisfactory it is open to the Dáil, and in a lesser manner to the Seanad, to focus attention upon whatever defects there might be in the administration of that office. The section which sets out the matters which are to be dealt with and which, in fact, governs the remainder of the measure is Section 2. The census of population, of production, including agricultural production and particulars of fisheries, can only be got under powers such as these. It is, in the view of the Government, necessary that this information should be got. If the Government does not get that information, it cannot do the things that have been pressed on it almost since it took up office.

There is really very little opportunity given for securing this information at present. One would not exaggerate if he were to say that there is really no means of getting it at present apart from certain returns which may be acquired at the ports. Having regard to these circumstances, I think that there is a case for passing this measure. Senator Bagwell really put the case in a nut-shell when he admitted that he found great difficulty in framing amendments which would secure the end he had in view. If one were to examine all legislation which is introduced with a microscope, one would find these defects, but it is not the intention of the Government, and it will not be the intention of any future Government, to press such new offices as it is intended to set up in getting this information, to such extremes as would revolt the common sense of the people under this new statistics scheme.

This is a measure which would enable the Government to take a census of population. It has not been taken for a long time. It will, I think, be admitted that information of that sort, even though it might be of use to certain people on political platforms, and even though it would not enable one to show that any great effect would be produced on business by reason of the information disclosed, is information which ought to be in the possession of any Government. We are fifteen years behind with regard to that, and we are very much more than fifteen years behind in regard to much more important information which it is hoped to get as a result of this measure.

I do not think there is any question but that the Seanad ought to pass the Second Reading of this Bill. The President has expressed surprise that no practical amendments have been suggested here. He has complimented and he has lectured us. Perhaps, in return, I might point out that even in the Seanad we do not propose amendments on Second Reading, nor is it usual to suggest amendments on a Second Reading debate. The President has such an almost childlike faith in the capability of the people to return a right and stable Government that one almost wonders why he ever thinks it necessary to speak from a public platform at a by-election, and one wishes that he could imbue us with that faith. I wish I could share it. I think it is not desirable to deal with the details of the Bill on the Second Reading, but I do think that it is exactly the kind of Bill with a Second revising Chamber such as this is, has to amend. It is the kind of Bill which the House should go through very carefully. The President says that if we look through any Bill with a microscope we will find defects. I do not say that we should use a microscope in this case, but it is our function to find these defects, particularly in a Bill so full of details as this is.

I do not think it is fair for the President to suggest that anything said here is a reflection on civil servants or on their integrity. The fact is that as the Bill stands any member of the Gárda Síochána is to be treated as a person authorised under the Act, and I think it is quite natural that there should be a certain amount of misgiving. I think when this Bill is examined it will be found that certain safeguards can be included. For my part, I cannot think of anything that is not included in the second section of the Bill. I am not quite sure whether it includes certain religious matters, but it would be easy to include them. Everything is included in the Bill, and the method of using these powers should be safeguarded. I do not think it is impossible to suggest amendments. However, I hope the Seanad will, without a division, pass the Second Reading.

The statistics which are sought for in this Bill form the basis and foundation of all useful legislation. Unless we have power to investigate thoroughly the position of any industry we cannot introduce legislation to benefit that industry. With regard to the general objections and the qualms that some Senators would seem to have, as to the powers under this Bill applying to their private concerns, I might give a few instances where such powers are already exercised. Take the Income Tax Office, a very inquisitorial department. One is bound, under very heavy penalties, to lay all information regarding his financial position before these authorities. In the case of super-tax, one is bound to disclose his super-profits, and, in the last resort, the banking account is laid before the income tax officials. There never has been any open scandal, during my recollection, as a result of information disclosed to income tax officials. They are very honourable men, and I presume the same conditions will apply to the conduct of any other officials that may be called upon to prepare statistics under this Bill.

I am satisfied that if we have not full powers to get the fullest information and to probe matters to the bottom it would be better to have no power at all. If you have not the full position disclosed you are not in a position to introduce sound and useful legislation that will endure. If you pass legislation on part information or perhaps 75 per cent. information, you are basing it upon an unstable foundation, and possibly in time, before the measure is long in operation, you will find that you will have to repeal it, and perhaps in the interval a great deal of damage that cannot be lightly undone, has been done. When we come to amend this, I agree with Senator Bagwell that it is difficult to frame any amendments that will not weaken the powers given under the Bill, and if you weaken the powers, it means that the officials can only go to a certain point to discover information. They must stop short there, although the very vital point may be after that. I think on the whole this is a very necessary measure, and I support it.

Although I have the misfortune to be short-sighted I do not require a microscope to satisfy myself of certain very serious dangers and defects in this Bill. I should like first of all to deal with the broad principle. It has been referred to before and it is continually arising in legislation. It is the demand for increased and increasing powers by the Executive from Parliament to proceed by Order. At the present time Bills can be introduced permitting the Government to do what they like and to carry out what is suggested by the Preamble. Is that fair or right? If so, are we true to our responsibilities as a Parliament? Are we practically to subscribe to this policy of giving a blank cheque to the Government to proceed at their own sweet will? Of course if we were a perfect State we would not require a Government, we would just select a few wise men and say: "The people are sensible, you are wise, and we do not require all this elaborate machinery of Parliament."

Appoint Commissioners.

Yes, pay Commissioners. As the Senator suggests, you might carry the doctrine of Commissioners a bit further and supersede Parliament altogether. That is the direction in which a measure of this kind is tending. Senator Bagwell might be perfectly right when he suggested that it is an unwise tendency, and that the Government should cooperate more closely with the Oireachtas, and proceed ad hoc in this matter of statistical legislation. The census requirements should be dealt with in one measure and the census of production —with which I have the greatest sympathy and which should be obtained— in another. I notice incidentally that the existing machinery for procuring the census of production is now being repealed, and that the Government can proceed any way they like.

I do not think it is unfair to suggest that in the methods of banking or finance the Government might require classification of depositors. Conceivably, that might be very useful to the State. It would have a close relation, possibly, to Budget reckoning. But, do we consider it wise that information of that kind should be sought? If we do the information can now be obtained without any further reference to us. If we do not consider it wise— and I am sure there are many who do not—we have reason in asking that a matter of that kind should come before us definitely, in form for approval. For that reason, when it comes to putting down amendments, I think we should call to our aid that, I am afraid, rather formal safeguard, that these Orders prescribing the information required should be open to annulment by either Chamber within a certain time. Judging by past experience I know that that method has not been very much used, and some may doubt if it is of any value. Still, it is there and it would act as a useful check on the Government when asking information that unduly interferes with private business or the private rights of the citizen.

The President suggested that the Government did not ask for useless information. I should like him to consult his own advisers on the subject of railway statistics and see what use they serve, how much they cost to prepare, and whether they can be in any way justified at present? Section 10 of this Bill gives any officer of statistics power to make a domiciliary visit to any citizen's private home for the purpose of inspecting documents or records. That seems to be a very wide, dangerous, and far-reaching power. Presumably it will only be used if there is any suspicion as to the accuracy of returns, and as the President suggests the Government ought to be trusted in the exercise of their duties, I would suggest that the citizen or the business affected should be trusted as to the veracity of the information supplied. Even if there is suspicion, this power of domiciliary visits, not necessarily by a civil servant, but by a member of the Civic Guard, to any person's home, and inspection of his books for the purposes of statistical information, is a very wide power, and one that the Seanad should not confer on any Government without very careful consideration. These are matters, possibly, that may be dealt with in Committee, but at present, in spite of the examples of Australia, Canada, and South Africa, which the President has mentioned, we have to proceed not by analogy but on our own judgment in reference to our own circumstances. I suggest that this Bill is too wide, and that the powers it gives should be limited by the Seanad.

Senator Keane mentioned railway statistics as being a case in point. The railway arrangement was inherited by us; it is not imposed by us. That matter is at present under consideration with a view to seeing what information is necessary. The information that is disclosed by reason of a certain inheritance we entered into is both expensive, and some of it is not of any service.

Might I intervene to ask whether these statistics are prescribed by law or are they only required by order? If the latter why can they not be repealed or abolished by order?

As I said, we have the matter under consideration and I do not think it is seriously suggested that we should repeal an Act until we know what is required.

I agree this is a Bill to which we ought to give a Second Reading without a division, but I do not agree with the President that this is a Bill which is practically incapable of amendment. On the contrary, I think this is a Bill which, having regard to the extraordinary powers given by it, will require the most careful consideration by this House for the purpose of introducing, if necessary, such amendments as will protect the public from some of its operations. The President thought that any misgivings any man might have about this Bill, are the misgivings of the ultra-nervous. I am not aware of having jagged nerves, and I confess I have some misgivings about the provisions of this Bill.

This is not the time for going into particulars of the kind of amendments that may be thought necessary, but may I suggest one? Power is given to the Minister, by this Bill, of a most drastic kind, and if the citizen who is asked to comply with the requirements of the statistical officer refuses to do so he is, at once, liable on summary conviction before a District Justice to a fine of £20 or, in the alternative, to imprisonment for three months, and he has no protection whatever in the section which gives a district court that power, because sub-section 2 of Section 7 of the Bill says:

"Every person who is lawfully required by an officer of statistics to give or furnish to such officer any written or verbal information or to answer any question asked of him, shall to the best of his knowledge, ability or belief (as the case may require) give or furnish such information or answer such question, and if he fails or refuses so to do shall be guilty of an offence under this section,"

and being guilty of such an offence he will be subject on summary conviction to the punishments I have mentioned. "Lawfully" there means simply that the procedure prescribed by this Bill has been gone through. It does not mean that he has not been asked a question which he might not be lawfully asked under this Bill. The District Justice, acting under this section, would have no right to consider whether the citizen was justified in giving information or not.

What about clause 15?

"Every officer of statistics who in the pretended performance of his duties as such officer obtains or attempts to obtain by any means from any person on any occasion any information which he is not lawfully entitled to obtain by that means from that person on that occasion shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment."

I agree, but that is if he pretends to have authority which he has not got. I suggest, having regard to the extraordinary provisions of this Bill, that there should be some independent tribunal or committee between the citizen and the statistical officer to whom the citizen, if he refuses to give information he is required to give, will be able to appeal and ask that body whether this is information he ought to give. I think if there were a committee of that sort set up under an amendment of this House it would take very largely away from the nervousness and misgivings people have about the powers given to the Minister and the statistical officers under this Bill. I think that would be a better provision than the provision of laying those Orders and Regulations on the Table of the House. I have great pleasure in supporting a Second Reading of this Bill, but I would have suggested, if Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde had not suggested it, that this Bill be referred to a small Select Committee.

Question—"That the Bill be read a second time"—put and agreed to.

In accordance with the notice I gave, I ask leave of the House to move that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. Unfortunately, as I was called out, I did not hear all the President's speech, and did not know whether he expressed any view on that subject or not.

CATHAOIRLEACH

He did not; it was not his business. He confines himself always to his own business.

He has many business and is capable of expressing himself on any of them. I think it is advisable to refer this Bill, which has given rise to some feeling, to a Select Committee. Some Senators think this is a Bill that it is difficult to amend. I think we could certainly move amendments to every section. If I could go back thirty years I could remember some Bills which I had in London involving questions much less inflammable than this one. If the Seanad agree with my motion the Committee of Selection can appoint a Select Committee.

I should like to ask has the mover taken into consideration the question of the Census. Does the whole Bill go to the Select Committee?

CATHAOIRLEACH

Certainly.

It may impede the taking of the Census.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I do not think this question arises, because if this Bill is referred to a Select Committee the Committee can meet as soon as possible and dispose of it. A Select Committee would be more expeditious than a Committee of this House.

I second the motion.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I think the Selection Committee could meet after this House adjourned to-day and appoint a Select Committee.

If it is necessary that the Select Committee should meet urgently, could we not have the Committee appointed now?

I move that the Select Committee be appointed and that the following be members of it —Senators Jameson, Bagwell, Keane, Esmonde, Molloy, Douglas, Brown, and General Sir Bryan Mahon; that four form a quorum, and that the Committee report within a fortnight from this date.

Question put and agreed to.
The Seanad went into Committee.
Top
Share