Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Apr 1934

Vol. 18 No. 15

Sheepskin (Control of Export) Bill, 1934—Committee.

Mr. Counihan

I move amendment No. 1:—

Section 2, sub-section (2). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Every order made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and, if a resolution annulling such order is passed by either such House at any time during the continuance of such order, such order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such order.

The amendment which I originally intended to propose for insertion in the Bill was to ensure that any loss that would probably arise under the provisions of the Bill, in the price paid for sheepskins, would not fall upon the farmers who produced the fat sheep. I wanted to propose an amendment that would ensure that any loss that would arise in the price of sheepskins would be met by the Minister out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. I was informed that such an amendment would not be in order. Consequently I am moving this rather innocent and harmless amendment, which will ensure that if the price of sheepskins is unreasonable it will be open to either House of the Oireachtas to move a resolution nullifying the order made under this Bill so that sheepskins can be exported again in the ordinary way. I am quite sure that under this Bill, if there is no means of controlling the price, sheepskins will fall two or three shillings because there will be no competition. It would be well in these circumstances that the Minister should be able to say to these people that unless they pay a fair price for the sheepskins, representatives of the farmers either in the Dáil or in the Seanad would get an order passed allowing sheepskins to be again exported. In all these cases provisions are made for such orders to be annulled. I cannot see any reason why the same provision should not be adopted under this Bill. Consequently I move this amendment and hope the Minister will accept it.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

I think this amendment is completely unnecessary. It asks that any order made under Section 2 of the Bill shall be laid before the Oireachtas and may be nullified if either House so decide. In fact that is what is happening now in a sense. The Bill provides for the making of that order. In fact the whole purpose of the Bill is to give power to make that order, and if either House thinks the order should not be made, or having been made, should be nullified they have the power to do so. There is, I think, no analogy between an order made under Section 2 of this Bill, and orders made under other Bills which may be of a varying nature, and which may be made from time to time or made subject to certain contingencies arising. Under this Bill we have decided to give power to make an order; there is no other purpose but to give power to make an order. Consequently I think the passage of the Bill should signify approval of the making of such order. I suggest that no purpose would be served by having that order again laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Counihan

Could they revoke the order by a resolution of the House?

Mr. Lemass

It is always open to the House to promote legislation repealing a Bill or to adopt a resolution urging the repeal of a Bill and consequently no additional power could be afforded by the passing of this resolution.

Mr. Counihan

When the Bill is passed and an order is made what effect would a resolution of the House have upon each case?

Mr. Lemass

It would have no effect except to show the view of the House. But a private Bill to repeal the Act could be introduced any time. The difference between an order under this Bill and an order under the Transport Act or similar legislation is this. The purpose of the Bill is to enable the order to be made. The cancellation of the order, the failure to make the order or the subsequent revocation of the order is, in fact, a nullification of the Bill. The whole measure goes; it has no other purpose whatever. There would be no purpose in keeping the Act in existence if the order were not in force. In some other types of legislation, power may be taken to make orders in various contingencies, to make orders of varying kinds or to make orders at different times when different sets of circumstances arise. In such cases, there might be an argument in favour of having either the positive approval of each House of the Oireachtas or power in either House to cancel the order. In this case, however, these various sets of circumstances do not exist. In this case, the sole purpose of the Bill is to enable the order to be made and if the order were to be revoked, cancelled or annulled, the legislation might as well be annulled. Consequently, I suggest that if either House of the Oireachtas should wish to cancel this order when made, the better way to do it would be by repealing legislation and not by resolution as suggested

Mr. Counihan

The Minister has taken power under the Bill to revoke the order and to allow sheepskins to be exported again in the ordinary way. I contend that there is greater reason to give either House power to annul the order. Presumably, that would only be done if the fellmongers, of whom there are only three in the country at present, could not deal with the stocks of sheepskins. Such a resolution will not revoke the whole Bill. After a resolution is passed in either House, the export of sheepskins will again be reopened, only until there is more fell-mongering or more customers for sheepskins in this country. The resolution will not annul the Bill and the Minister can make another order in two or three months time when there will be more competition for these skins at home. I do not think there is any occasion on record where this House passed a resolution annulling an order made by the Minister under any of the Acts under which they have power to do so. I do not see any reason why that power should be taken from us under this Bill. We are given certain constitutional rights under other Bills, and I think we should be given the same constitutional right under this Bill.

Mr. Lemass

My point is that really the sole purpose of the Bill is to make the order. My view is that the Bill should not be annulled by a resolution. It should be annulled by repealing legislation and not by a resolution.

Mr. Counihan

It would be impossible to annul the Act in sufficient time by legislation to effect our purpose. We are giving the Minister power to make the order but we say that, if we think that the order is bad and that anybody in either House of the Oireachtas can show that the order is bad, and that it should be revoked, it is only right that either House of the Oireachtas should have power to annul the order.

Mr. Lemass

The Senator will see that the effect of the passage of the amendment will be to give either House of the Oireachtas power to annul the order.

Mr. Counihan

Why not?

Mr. Lemass

I think it should be both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Counihan

"Either House of the Oireachtas" is the phrase used in other Acts.

Mr. Lemass

Quite, but this Bill is somewhat different to ordinary Bills providing for the making of orders. The sole purpose of the Bill is to enable the order to be made. If either House of the Oireachtas thinks that the legislation should not be operative, then I think it should be required to proceed by way of amending or repealing legislation rather than by resolution. I can imagine this House objecting to a Bill of this kind, or of any kind in fact, being annulled by a simple resolution of the Dáil without this House being consulted just as I can imagine the Dáil objecting to legislation being annulled by a resolution here without the Dáil being consulted. The Bill contains nothing except the power to make an order and therefore a cancellation of the order would mean repeal of the legislation. That should be done by an amending Bill rather than by resolution.

Mr. Bagwell

I do not agree with the first part of the Minister's statement in reference to this Bill, but I do agree with the latter part. I should like him to answer a question before I make any further remarks. Would the Minister be prepared to accept this amendment if, instead of reading "each House of the Oireachtas", it read "both Houses of the Oireachtas."

Mr. Lemass

I think it would be unnecessary, but the same objection would not be there. I think that because of the nature of the Bill, this provision is not required. The Bill can be repealed at any time by legislation and the effect of repealing it by legislation is the same as the cancellation of the order. Obviously, there would not be the same objection to the amendment if the consent of both Houses of the Oireachtas were required because in such circumstances it is reasonable to assume that amending legislation would be passed without opposition.

Mr. Bagwell

The Minister will admit that this is a piece of legislation which is experimental. What is in Senator Counihan's mind is that it is aimed at restricting the market for an extremely depressed industry, which is the largest in the State. That is what we are afraid of. We think this may be proved as time goes on and so we desire some quicker method of dealing with it than the power of introducing private legislation. The matter could be met by resolution if it is found that the results are what Senator Counihan fears; otherwise it would be very disastrous and detrimental to the country. I did not quite hear the Minister in his statement and I do not know whether he would be prepared to accept the amendment, modified in the way I suggested. If not, I shall vote for the amendment as it stands. Would the Minister accept the amendment altered in the way I suggested.

Mr. Lemass

My position is that I would prefer if the amendment were not carried at all but with the inclusion of the term "both Houses" instead of "either House," I do not think it need be made a cause of contention because obviously the procedure required to secure a passage of the resolution in both Houses would be the same as would be required to secure the passage of amending legislation.

Cathaoirleach

After all, Senator, this Bill, as far as I read it, provides for the revocation of the order by the Minister at any time. You are only asking to insert a provision that the revocation should be adopted at the request of either House. That is a provision which might reasonably be inserted in any legislation. It is only asking that the Minister should accept a recommendation of either House.

Mr. Lemass

It is something more than accepting a suggestion because the Minister is not given the option of refusing to accept the suggestion.

Cathaoirleach

That is provided for by the Bill.

Mr. Counihan

I pointed out to the Minister that the records of this House do not show any instance where we revoked an order in opposition to the will of the Minister. We are now engaged on a piece of experimental legislation, the consequences of which we do not know. I think it would be useless to require that both Houses should pass the resolution. The Minister has taken power to revoke the order himself and all I am asking is that the order should be revoked on a resolution of either House. I presume that any Senator standing up to move such a resolution must show clearly that there is a case for revoking the order; otherwise he will not get the House to pass the resolution. For that reason I would ask the Minister to accept the amendment. I am prepared to agree to an adjournment of the matter to enable the Minister to consider it.

Cathaoirleach

I think it would be well to have a consultation with the Minister and to postpone the amendment to the Report Stage. Perhaps Senator Bagwell might join with Senator Counihan in that consultation with the Minister.

Amendment postponed to Stage.

Sections 2, 3, 4 and the Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported to House.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 25th April.