Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Dec 1947

Vol. 34 No. 17

Poultry Hatcheries Bill, 1947—Committee Stage (resumed).

SECTION 9.

Sir John Keane

I move amendment No. 2:—

In sub-section (2), line 48, after the word "such" to insert the word "prescribed"; and in line 49, after the word "any" to insert the word "prescribed".

I think it will save repetition if I state the general attitude to this measure. This measure could take the form of about two sections, for all the protection it gives the poultry owner. It could simply have given power to the Minister to regulate artificial incubation and egg supply to people who carry on artificial incubation, because in this Bill there is no specific holding of the scales as between authority and the parties affected. I notice that the attitude of the Minister always is: "You can trust me; I would not do such a stupid thing." He said that to Senator Johnston. He does not realise that the poultry owner can say the same thing when you come along with a lot of irritating regulations: "You can trust me to know what is in my own interest and not to do silly things which will affect the reputation of my product."

In the Bill, small as it is, is involved the whole principle of Government control. I hope to show the House that in this Bill we have moved, not only one step, but many steps down the path towards—I am told not to use a certain word but I have another word— global authority and global powers. I remember a certain local councillor in my young days, being very annoyed at something that was done, said: "I will resign and, not only will I resign but I will resign in globo.” Perhaps Senator O'Donovan and I can find accommodation on the phrase “in globo” because it suits my purpose just as well as the other word to which he objects.

It is the duty of Parliament to hold the balance between the right of the free man to carry on his business as he wishes, and authority. It is its duty to preserve his power to show enterprise, to strike out on new avenues without having undue control placed upon him. That is where I join issue with the Minister. The Minister is the third Minister for Agriculture that I have had to deal with in my public life and my first impression is that he does not seem to appreciate the need for any regard for the rights of the free man, the rights of the farmer, his right to carry on his business unfettered. He says: "You can trust me; I am not going to do anything against your interests. I am a sensible man with a whole array of experts at my back. I know what is best for you." I think the history of regulations will come up in another form on a motion by Senator Counihan later on and he will probably show that regulations are not doing all they are intended to do, at any rate, to satisfy the farmers.

Here is an example: The Minister takes power in Section 9 sub-section (2), in granting a hatchery licence, from time to time to attach to a poultry hatchery such conditions as he thinks proper, and may revoke or amend any condition. The phrase "from time to time" may be important. It may be when he finds time. It may be as he sees fit or whenever he feels so disposed. May I refer, as it has a bearing on it, to the phrase used in sub-section (1) because these phrases show the spirit behind the regulation and reveal that we have gone far down the path to global authority. I have been searching among regulations. I have not made a complete search. I have found nowhere the phrase that is used in sub-section (1) of this section—"in his absolute discretion". These phrases signify the jack-boot mentality: "I am jolly well going to do it." I do not say the words may not be used but they do imply the spirit that is behind the regulations. In what way would it weaken the substance of the section if it read, "the Minister may"? The spirit behind this is, "I shall jolly well do so and I can jolly well do what I like." The sub-section says: "The Minister may from time to time attach to a poultry hatchery licence such conditions as he thinks proper"—that means to say, as I read it, the poultry hatchery owner is entirely at the mercy of the Minister, not only with regard to regulations to ensure, say, the prevention of the spread of disease, but in any respect. If the owner of a hatchery says: "I want to specialise in a new breed of poultry; I want to go in for a breed that has not hitherto been very popular in this country but which I think has great promise; I want to have Rhode Island Reds, which are not popular in this district", the Minister can quite likely say: "No; the condition of your licence is that you can only have a particular type of poultry."

I can visualise, under this power, the Minister saying, "No, I shall not allow you to send your products to this district or that district." You must supply the district that I say. There is an example of what can be done under the loose wording of this section, as I read it. He can apply conditions to the individual. He can say to A, do this, to B, do that and to C, do the other.

The purpose of my amendment is to say that these powers must be prescribed, must be made by Order, so that at least they must be general conditions, so that everybody knows where he is and so that, within those general terms, the owner of the hatchery is free. That is my purpose. This is an advance, it seems to me, in the encroachment of global regulations and we have to watch it very carefully. This is a step forward that we have to watch. The whole object of the amendment is to show the new dangers we are facing with this kind of legislation. The section says that licensing conditions may be prescribed and "prescribed" means automatically a form of regulation.

Mr. Smith

I am not in the humour for fighting with the Senator to-night, but I am in the humour to refuse to accept the amendment. I do so for the simple reason that that is the advice tendered to me and is in accordance with my own judgment. I could not make general regulations and conditions for the control of this business in the way which the Senator describes. There are matters which undoubtedly can be covered—and will be covered— by general regulations, but general regulations could not be of such a comprehensive nature as to give the Minister or his Department the right and the power that they would require in every type of case. Different conditions and regulations would have to be made in different cases. While I admit that it is possible to make general regulations, and that such regulations will be made, it would be inadvisable to do so. I do not propose to accept an amendment that would restrict me in the way that this one undoubtedly would.

Perhaps it is a weak argument to use but the power I am seeking is a power that will be found in a previous Bill that I had before this House, giving the Minister exactly the same power in relation more or less to similar questions. The power will be found in a number of Acts of Parliament. While that may not be a good argument, or mean that that is to continue, I do not believe it is a wrong power. It may be undesirable but apparently experience has shown that it cannot be done without. I have not made the case that the Minister will not do wrong. I always leave it to the other fellow to think that. I do not believe in repeating that from the Minister's chair.

At the same time I believe that most people feel that a Minister can take a perfectly balanced view of these matters, and that there is no analogy between the view he would take and the view of an interested party. An interested party will view a particular matter from his or her point of view, and naturally such judgment will be influenced accordingly, but a Minister should be free, and is free to decide on the evidence before him. I cannot accept the amendment or the idea behind it.

Sir John Keane

If the Minister challenges my statement that this proposal is a step forward, and a very big step towards a more rigid form of legislation, I think he ought to give some argument. I could bring forward arguments totally different from his. The Minister says that these powers to make any conditions he likes attach to other legislation. He referred to a Bill which was passed recently which I think was a terrible one, dealing with insemination. Surely that does not justify the continuance of an undesirable power. I asked the Minister to give instances, seeing that he has officials and information available to him, where arbitrary powers are attached to licences in the form contemplated here.

Mr. Smith

Section 3 of the Agriculture and Fishery Products (Regulation of Export) Act, 1947, stated that when the Minister issued licences under that measure he might attach such conditions as he thought appropriate and so specify them in the licence. I could bring in armfuls of precedents in which the same power is inscribed.

Sir John Keane

I feel these are very dangerous powers in a Bill dealing with artificial incubation. I do not intend to press the amendment but I shall press other amendments. This amendment is the least involved but I think it is an important one.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir John Keane

I move amendment No. 3:—

After sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(3) The Minister shall give notice of his intention to refuse a person a licence for a poultry hatchery and if representations are made to him by such person within seven days he shall consider such representations.

This is simply intended to apply to the refusal of a licence and the procedure is the same as the Minister deems it fit to apply in the case of revocation of a licence. Why, when a licence is going to be revoked, should the Minister think it fit to receive representations from a person affected and not do so from a person whose licence is refused? The effect of refusing is every bit as serious as revocation, seeing that a person in business could not carry on without a licence. A licence is to be refused without reason and in the Minister's "absolute discretion" without hearing any representations. The Dairies Act is hardly comparable, as the Minister there is the Minister for Local Government and the licensing authority is the sanitary authority; but there when a sanitary authority refuses to license a dairy there is an appeal to the Minister. In this case, what the Minister grants in the case of a revocation he should also grant in the case of a refusal.

Mr. Smith

Why make an attempt, through an amendment of this nature, to compel a Minister to do something that he must do in the ordinary way? If the applicant is refused a licence and is dissatisfied, I cannot prevent him from making such representations to me or to the Department, even if I as Minister desired to do so, nor can I prevent him from availing of the many other sources through which the matter might be brought to my notice. There is no alternative left to me as Minister but to reply to such representations— without such an amendment as this— whether they are made directly by the interested party or by somebody else.

I am asked here to consider this. I cannot reply to representations unless I have read them and considered them. An amendment of this kind seems entirely unnecessary. Even if it were sought by a Minister or his Department to deny to an individual the right, which I contend the individual enjoys already and which is being sought here, I would be unable to deny that right.

Sir John Keane

The Minister seems utterly inconsistent. He is giving these powers in the case of a revocation of a licence. Why does he give them, if he has already got the power? Surely, if he gives them in one case he should give them in the other. This seems illogical. In the very next section, where he takes power to revoke a licence, he is giving all this power of approach and representation which I am asking for now and he says it is not necessary. Why should it be necessary later on? He seems to be stultifying his own argument.

Mr. O'Dea

I think Senator Keane is mistaken. In the case to which he refers, the Minister has power to revoke a licence. The local authority merely gives notice of its intention to apply to the Minister for revocation and there is no appeal from that.

Sir John Keane

In the next section where revocation comes in, the Statute gives the party the right to make representations. Why should there not be a similar right where a licence is refused? The Dairies Act also is an illustration.

Mr. Smith

Taking away something a man has got is different from refusing something he never had.

Sir John Keane

But he is operating a poultry hatchery. He has got one.

Mr. Smith

If I have a hatchery and the Senator has power to take it from me because of certain irregularities of which he contends I am guilty, am I not in a different position from that of a person who is seeking permission to start a hatchery?

Sir John Keane

The hatchery is there already. The Minister may, on reports, say it is not properly conducted. This point comes on the passing of this measure. It is not a question of giving power to start a new hatchery. There is a hatchery there to-day and it has to be licensed in the near future, when the Bill comes into operation. The Minister's advisers may say it is not a desirable hatchery and the Minister may refuse a licence. I say that that party whose licence is refused should have the same right to make representations to the Minister as a party who, in a year's time, finds that his licence is revoked because something has gone wrong.

Mr. Smith

This is an extraordinary case for the Senator to make. If a man has £1,000 and you tell him you are going to deprive him of it, is he in the same position as someone looking for £1,000 who has not a shilling? Surely there is no comparison between the two cases.

Sir John Keane

The Minister may as well be logical and delete the powers in the next section, to which we will come in a minute.

Mr. Honan

I happen to know a little about this and can see why a licence should be revoked. In my county, there are 14 or 16 certified egg-producing farms of the right type, connected with one hatchery, Kilrush Creamery. Supposing another hatchery is established there and does not get a full supply of the duly certified eggs produced on a certified farm and they start going round about the country and buying all sorts of eggs and hatching them in their hatchery, doing away with the pure breed; in that case it would be right for the Minister or local authority to have power to revoke the licence or refuse to give a licence. They may already have a licence, having got it on the understanding that they could procure a sufficient supply of certified eggs, but afterwards found they could not and they started to buy every sort of egg. If that were done around the country, the scheme would go to pieces; so there should be power to revoke a licence.

Mr. Hayes

I do not quite follow the Minister's argument. It seems to me that Senator Keane's analogy is sounder than the Minister's. Surely people at present working poultry hatcheries will have to get a licence under this Bill. Therefore, if a man has a business at present and must get a licence, it is reasonable to say that when he has capital invested in it and applies to the Minister, who decides in all the circumstances he will not give him a licence, there should be some way of making representations. The analogy seems to be exact between the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 and the £1,000 business is something that simply came into the Minister's mind. It may be that the Minister must always consider representations, but if he does so as a matter of fact that is just as applicable to Section 10 as to Section 9.

Mr. Smith

If I have an income of £1,000 a year from the hatchery and it is already in existence and I have a licence for it——

Sir John Keane

No.

Mr. Smith

The analogy is that I own a hatchery in one section. It is giving me an income of £1,000 a year. That licence, for one cause or another sufficient in the opinion of the Minister, is being revoked. In that case, notice of intention to revoke is given. There is no analogy between that case and that of a man or woman who says: "I intend to start a hatchery business", knowing he or she must apply for a licence for it before starting. Surely the two cases are poles apart.

Mr. Hayes

Are there not people at present working poultry hatcheries who must get a licence?

Mr. Smith

That is so. Everyone will get one and all will start on the same footing.

Sir John Keane

There are people at present making money out of that hatchery.

Mr. Smith

Automatically these people must get a licence. It is only a matter of how they behave afterwards. When all these people have got their licences, if in 12 months or two years it is found they are not behaving according to the standards set up by my Department, I am obliged, before I confiscate the property, to give them notice. That is different from someone about to make application and who wants to start a hatchery. I say that my attempted analogy is completely sound.

Professor Johnston

Would the Minister say where the Bill indicates that these people must get a licence? Is it not in his absolute discretion?

Mr. Smith

Well, there is no question of it. We are starting at rock bottom. You might as well tell me that I am going to go out in the night to burn all the hatcheries of the country.

Sir John Keane

The position has been somewhat clarified now. It appears that existing hatcheries will be licensed, if I may use the words again, in globo and those who are prepared to carry out the regulations will be allowed to go on and those who are not will have their licences taken away from them. But even then why should a person, if refused a licence for a new hatchery, not have the right to make representations? However, I see that the matter has been limited in its scope and in view of that I propose to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Smith

Even such a person has the right to make such representations.

Sir John Keane

But he has not the right in law.

Pádraig Ó Siochfhradha

Ceist bheag atá agam ar an Aire, ón chainnt a rinne sé féin anois. The Minister refers to the intention to issue a licence to all persons at present engaged in this business. Does this envisage that licences will be issued to people who have not yet begun to work hatcheries?

Mr. Smith

Yes.

Pádraig Ó Siochfhradha

That strikes me as rather unusual. You are simply taking everything for granted. You are assuming that they will run them according to regulations.

Mr. Smith

The position is this, there are 24 commercial hatcheries at present and I am sure there are quite a number of these which, according to our view, are not properly conducted. On their making application when this Bill is enacted we will accept these people but we will then be in a position to say: "We accept you for registration but here are the conditions under which you are going to operate in future," we can say to them: "let bygones be bygones but things are going to be different in the future." Of course there will be people who will say to themselves "here is an opportunity for us to start into this business." We will receive applications from them and we will prescribe the conditions under which they will operate.

Pádraig Ó Siochfhradha

And they will take the risk afterwards?

Mr. Smith

Yes, they will have to do that.

Mr. Patrick O'Reilly

Can the Minister say if the existing hatcheries are sufficient to meet all the demands?

Mr. Smith

They are not sufficient to meet demands of the sort we have in mind.

Pádraig Ó Siochfhradha

Will the Parliamentary Secretary say——

Mr. Smith

Senator, I have been promoted. I was so long in that position that I do not like to be reminded of the days I was there.

Pádraig Ó Siochfhradha

There were so many Parliamentary Secretaries here recently that I have become confused. I must apologise to the Minister.

Mr. Hayes

It is not a term of abuse, anyhow.

Pádraig Ó Siochfhradha

There is a question I would like to ask the Minister. Is it likely that the question of producing a particular breed in a given area will be the cause of disagreement between the hatchery owner and the Department: whether as Sir John Keane pointed out, a person may want to do Rhode Island Reds in his hatchery when the Department may wish him to do White Wyandottes? Would that be a question for the withdrawal of a licence?

Mr. Smith

I cannot say, but I have some little knowledge of scheduled areas and I would prefer to stay away from them as far as possible.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 4 not moved.

AMENDMENT No. 5.

Mr. Hayes

I beg to move the following amendment standing in the name of Senator Sweetman:—

Before Section 10 to insert a new section as follows:—

10.—(1) The Minister may revoke a poultry hatchery licence.

(2) Any person aggrieved by the revocation of a poultry hatchery licence may appeal against such revocation in the prescribed manner to the district justice assigned to the district in which such hatchery is situate.

It asks for the insertion of a new section which embodies the principle that where a man's living has been taken away from him by Departmental action he should have the right of appeal to the courts. That is a matter of principle and it has been asserted from these benches on a variety of Bills. The Minister has, of course, the power to withdraw licences for bulls but there is a difference with regard to poultry hatcheries. It may well be that a poultry hatchery owner has a great lot of capital invested in it; possibly his entire capital, but Section 10 gives the Minister power, in his absolute discretion, to revoke a poultry hatchery licence for a hatchery that a person may be running and that person has not the right to resist it. Senator Sweetman considers, and I think it is fair to say, that such a position entitles the person concerned to the right of appeal to the District Court where the matter should be argued in public. Presumably there will be a very small number of such appeals but the principle is there, the principle that a man should not be deprived of his livelihood by a process which takes place behind closed doors and he should have recourse to the courts. I think that the circumstances of this particular case make the amendment more necessary.

Mr. Smith

Of all those amendments there is none which I feel it in me to oppose with greater enthusiasm than this one. It is a solicitor's amendment.

Mr. O'Dea

I do not agree with it.

Mr. Smith

Of course a man should never forget that there are more than one of those. This is one amendment that I will resist very strenuously. We have a good deal of experience of district justices and undoubtedly they are very excellent institutions, but from the manner in which they handle some of the business that affects my Department I have not such confidence in them as would seem to be felt by Senator Sweetman. What I have to say now and what I have said will, I know, provoke some further speeches but I am not sorry for that. What would district justices know of the pros and cons in a matter of this kind? Think of how necessary it might be to have action taken quickly.

Professor Johnston

You can do that under the amendment.

Mr. Smith

Think of how cumbersome even the taking of proceedings in the District Court is.

Mr. Douglas

You have not got to take proceedings under this amendment.

Mr. Smith

Well, the individual has.

Mr. Douglas

Only against the Minister. If he does not want to, he need not.

Mr. Smith

If he is not going to take them, why should it be there?

Mr. Douglas

Give him the right.

Mr. Smith

Why then make it necessary to have the officials of local authorities and the officials of my Department hawked all over the country and into court, running around with files trying to educate the justice as to what was meant by a particular decision of my Department? Why go through all this elaborate business of giving the individual the right to have the matter determined in the District Court when the Minister is in a position to have the technical information and, in fact, all the information at his disposal? In what way is the District Court as competent as the Minister to take a balanced view of the rights and wrongs in a matter of this kind?

I have been watching, as I say, decisions given every other day in matters relating to my own Department by district justices all over the country, and I can assure this House and the country, and I can assure the district justices and all concerned, that I have not at all the sort of confidence in their wisdom and their ability to handle these matters that Senator Sweetman seemed to have when he decided to put down this amendment. I have seen them approaching matters over the last three or four years and giving decisions upon them—matters that were of vital importance to our whole community— and treating them as if they were completely and absolutely trivial affairs. I have seen them in times when it was a question whether we would be able to feed our people—I have seen district justices coming along and imposing fines of 2/6 and 5/-. That was behaving as if they were like a lot of children who could not use their eyes and look around to see the sort of world in which we were living, and these are the people that I am invited to get and adjudicate on the balanced judgment that is given by a Minister, having regard to his own experience, and having regard to the technical and other advice at his hand every hour of the day. I am glad to have been given the opportunity by this amendment of saying these few things, and if I wanted to I could say much more.

Mr. Douglas

I am rather glad also that the Minister was given this opportunity because this raises an issue in which the differences between us are absolutely fundamental and deep-seated. The Minister by his speech has made that perfectly clear. I do not think that anything I could say, or that anybody else could say, could bridge the ground between us because, as I have just said, it is so fundamental. The Minister has no confidence in the courts. He is quite entitled to that view—confidence in the District Courts. I am not sure that he is justified——

Mr. Smith

I object to the interpretation placed by the Senator on my words.

Mr. Douglas

I am most anxious not to place any wrong interpretation on them. I understand from the Minister that he has been watching the District Courts in relation to his Department, and that he has not confidence that they would deal with matters raised in this Bill——

Mr. Smith

In relation to certain matters.

Mr. Douglas

In relation to certain matters of his Department. That is all I wanted to say, because that is where the fundamental difference between us is. The Minister believes that he, which, of course, means his staff, should be the prosecutor, the judge and the jury because the district justices—who, we think, should be the judge, though not the prosecutor— would not be suitable to deal with particular matters. I do not want to misrepresent the Minister in any way or to make any extreme statement. I do want to clarify, as best I can, the issue between us.

Now, I am absolutely convinced that, with the growth of Government power, which seems to be more or less inevitable—it has nothing to do with this particular Government or even with this particular country—but with the growth of Bills of a similar character to this Bill, the Minister asks, more or less, for general powers, and he is not quite sure how exactly, in some respects, he is going to deal with them until he gets them. I do not blame him, because the very nature of the Bill is to allow him to work out a policy, and he is not going to tell us what the policy is until he works it out.

Now, in the course of that control of industry it is regarded perhaps as necessary to work a licensing system. I do not suggest for a moment that there will be any intention or any serious likelihood that, as far as the majority of cases are concerned, the licensing system will not be worked perfectly fairly. What I do say is that if the Minister in his discretion decides to take away a licence from a person who has been operating one, and is, therefore, in certain cases deriving his livelihood from it, then I say that man should have the right of an independent appeal from the prosecutor and there should be a judge who should be able to decide between him and the Minister if he feels aggrieved. Now, in the majority of cases if a man accepts the revocation of his licence he will know perfectly well that he has broken the regulations. If he has, the question of a half-crown or five-shilling fine does not arise. The only thing to be decided by the justice would be whether the licence should be removed or not. The case would not come before the justice unless the man felt aggrieved at the decision of the Minister.

The question of haste would not arise either. In a case where a licence was revoked by a Minister whom he could not convince, the man at any rate would have the ultimate redress of an appeal to the District Court as distinct from the State. I believe that if we are going to have government by Order, and if that is going to extend under a democratic form of government, we will have, if we are going to safeguard democracy at all, to provide some method by which there will be an independent judgment where a person feels aggrieved against a Minister.

The Minister says that this amendment is bad because the District Court would not be suitable to deal with the matters which would arise on the Bill. I do not think that he is right in that, but even if he is he should provide another court, or some other body, which would be independent of him and of his Department. If you give the people the right of an independent appeal in cases where they seem to have a grievance they will be satisfied. On the other hand if they feel that behind closed doors, the Department which sends out inspectors to watch them acts as prosecutor and finds them guilty, you will not have confidence and you will not get good government.

I do not think that the question of trying to educate the district justices— I took down the word "educate" when the Minister used it—really arises. The question that arises is a question of fact. If a man appeals against a decision of the Minister because of a breach of the regulations and because he was deprived of his licence, all the Minister would have to do would be to satisfy the justice that, in fact, there had been that breach. That is a question of fact and should not be a matter for a bureaucratic decision. It is a question of fact to be decided by some independent body and until we get some other body, I think the district justice is the proper person to decide it.

Mr. O'Dea

I am generally not opposed to matters being brought into court, but in this case we have to visualise what happens before a licence is revoked. I am sorry we have gone into all this discussion about district justices. I have a very high opinion of district justices and I am sorry that anything should be said against them. But they are trained in law and not in poultry rearing, as a general rule. They know little or nothing about it. On the other hand, there are poultry instructresses in the Department with inspectors over them. They have to report to their higher inspectors, and they are cross-examined and possibly further inquiries are made before the inspector sends the matter up to the Department.

I contemplate that it is only in cases in which it is absolutely necessary that the licence should be revoked that it will come before the Minister at all. It will come before him on the basis of reports which are generally very well founded, but which it may be very hard to prove in court, although results may bear out these reports. If there is to be an appeal to a district justice, I know that a district justice would be very embarrassed and would find it very difficult to go into a matter as the Minister could go into it, inasmuch as he will not have the knowledge the Minister will have through his officials. The Department may also find it very hard to produce evidence of what they know perfectly well to be true, but which cannot be established by legal evidence. The particular hatchery may work a great injustice in the country while all that is going on.

There are also cases of appeals being taken for the mere purpose of delay. In some courts, only matters of a criminal nature are dealt with in certain months, from May or June until October. No civil business will be dealt with during that period. This will be a civil matter, and, if an appeal is taken in May or June, the case would not come on for hearing until October and very serious injury might be done.

Mr. Hayes

The hatchery would be closed in the interval, under the amendment.

Mr. O'Dea

I do not think so.

Mr. Hayes

Under the amendment, yes.

Mr. Douglas

It would, because the Minister can withdraw the licence.

Mr. Smith

Who would compensate in the meantime?

Mr. Hayes

It is a post factum appeal, is it not?

Mr. O'Dea

That is worse again—if a man has to close down and then appeal.

Mr. Smith

Then the question of compensation, if the Minister was held to be wrong, would arise.

Mr. Douglas

This is not our amendment but, in principle, we agree with it, and my reading of it is that the Minister has still full power to withdraw, but there will be a right of appeal afterwards. Whether that is good or not, I am not saying.

Mr. O'Dea

If you give an appeal, the decision is worthless until confirmed on appeal.

Mr. Smith

There would be no point in an appeal otherwise.

Mr. O'Dea

If you give an appeal, the decision is not operative until the appeal has been decided, and a person would not have to close. Months may elapse in that way before the appeal is heard. Possibly the decision would be confirmed, but a lot of damage would have been done in the meantime. I suggest that there is no great danger of a revocation, unless there is a very serious necessity for it, and it has to go through all the different stages before it takes place.

Mr. Hayes

I should like to hear Senator O'Dea making a speech on this amendment, if the Minister were not a member of his Party.

Mr. O'Dea

I would say exactly the same as I have said. I do not think I am very much influenced in that way, and, as a matter of fact, I have often opposed the Minister on different matters in this House.

Mr. Hayes

I am dealing with this particular question. The fundamental thing in Senator O'Dea's point is that the Minister is all right. That is the fundamental thing, and the difference between the Minister's attitude and mine, and our attitude generally——

Mr. O'Dea

On a point of correction, I think I said that the Minister is more certain to be right because of the officials he has, officials who are trained in this particular business and who advise him.

Mr. Hayes

In other words, the point is that the Minister is going to be right.

Mr. O'Dea

Ought to be.

Mr. Hayes

That is another point.

Mr. Douglas

We can be unanimous on that.

Mr. Smith

Always is.

Mr. Hayes

That is the attitude of mind in all this. The Minister has it in the highest possible degree—higher than any other Minister, and some are pretty bad. He began his speech about this amendment by saying it was a solicitor's amendment. I do not know whether that was a joke or not, but, if it was not, it was a very mean observation, because Senator Sweetman happens to be a solicitor but does not happen to be a solicitor who wants any more business. I do not think the amendment was put down for the purpose of making business in the courts, but in pursuance of a particular known principle. The principle is that the man who is the prosecutor should not be the judge and the person who also imposes the penalty. That is what the Minister is in this case and every other case like it.

The Minister talks about balance. How could he have balance? How could he be the most balanced person to decide all these matters? First, he represents a political Party. If we waive that—and I am prepared to waive it, although he does represent a political Party; I heard the Minister himself in opposition pretty effective and strong on that very point, that Ministers were always politicians— except the Ministers of his own particular persuasion—the Minister is also a person who has a particular policy in his mind about poultry, a policy which he wants to put into operation and who is impatient when people do not believe in him. There is always a possibility that the people who do not believe in the Minister on the particular point may be right.

Mr. Smith

They could not be.

Mr. Hayes

There you are. How could there be any balance in the mind of a man who has that outlook? He is a man in a hurry; he is full of efficiency, full of haste and full of that most pernicious of all doctrines, perfectionism. He wants to make everything perfect, but perfect á la Smith, and not perfect á la O'Dea even. He has Smith's view of how it is to be made perfect, and he feels that district justices, legal procedure, laws of evidence and all these things are nuisances to keep him from getting all the eggs he wants to get in a particular place and by a particular process. That is quite a wrong attitude of mind. The same thing could be applied to the police. There are police officers who have that point of view. They have been kept in restraint by the law here and elsewhere, but there are such men who think that the District Court and every other court is a nuisance. They have the man and the proof, and, like the Minister, they have no confidence in the District Court where it concerns their Department. That is a common view—the policeman has no confidence in the District Court in relation to his own department, just as the Minister has no confidence in it, or any other court, in relation to his Department.

It is quite wrong. There is an absolute lack of humanity in it. It is all for efficiency and brushing away people's rights and depriving them of these rights summarily. Every Ministerial goose is a swan—that is what it amounts to. The Minister could not possibly be balanced when he is the judge in his own case and on his own policy. I do not say for a moment that this Minister or any other Minister and his officials are going to be unjust, but they begin the whole investigation with particular prepossessions, with particular prejudices, with particular views and with particular desires and are unable to give a balanced judgment.

The district justice is not skilled in poultry rearing. Are civil servants skilled in poultry rearing—the whole of them, or any of them? I think it may very well be doubtful. In any event, we presumably cannot accomplish anything by talking about this kind of amendment. The Minister made his mind perfectly clear. He is impatient of the notion of justice being administered according to rules. It ought to be possible, if not for the district justice, then for some independent person, to go into the question as to whether known rules have been carried out and, if known rules have been broken, then let the penalty be paid but, if it cannot be proved that known rules were broken, then why should a man be deprived of his livelihood?

This runs through a great many Departments besides this one and I do not want to continue discussion, at this particular hour, and in our present circumstances, but the Minister's view is fundamentally the view of people who want to brush aside law. The most deadly names of all the names in modern times are "progress" and "efficiency". They want, in the name of progress and efficiency, the two false gods of our period, at whose shrine they are now worshipping, to destroy people's ordinary rights and, incidentally, to destroy their livelihood. It is a mistake.

Sir John Keane

May I add a rider to the suggestion that progress and efficiency are deadly names? Progress and efficiency as dictated and coerced from above, certainly; inspired from below, certainly not. There is where the Minister and the point of view I am trying to represent are poles apart.

This Bill, if it serves no other purpose, will at least throw a searchlight on the mentality and outlook of the Minister. I give him every credit for the zeal of a young man in a hurry, of the new broom. But, as a Parliamentarian, as a person to hold the scales between authority and civic rights, I think it is a most deplorable outlook that he is presenting to us. I could not believe that I would sit in this House for 25 years and then hear a Minister speak like he did about the courts of justice. I certainly admire his courage and candour but I certainly cannot admire his discretion and, in years to come, when he talks about his salad days, this will be one of the outstanding features of his salad days— the day he spoke as he did about the courts of justice.

We are all impatient in our own spheres if the courts do not give us everything we want at once but those of us who have any proper democratic outlook, who want to proceed in a civilised and orderly manner, who want to avoid the methods that are dominating large parts of Eastern Europe today, are quite glad that the courts should be rather lenient and should be a brake on hasty authority, even though they do sometimes retard dictated progress from above. We quite realise that may be the fact but I think any citizen who values freedom and anything really worth having in life would prefer that the courts should be lenient rather than merely yes-men to authority in a hurry and impatient. I certainly regard as deplorable the speech the Minister made with regard to the attitude of the courts.

Mr. Smith

I have enjoyed the two speeches to which we have just listened, especially the speech made by Senator Hayes. What shall I say about it? He took me back very far. He took me back to the time when I was learning from the Senator how to hold the balance fairly. I enjoy, in this House, and sometimes outside it, and in the other House, this cultivation of an atmosphere in which you dare not open your mouth to mention the courts. We all regard the courts as a very necessary and useful institution. I have not any qualms about expressing my views as to the competence of district justices in District Courts to adjudicate on matters of this kind. Neither have I any hesitation, here or in any other place, in expressing my view when in the District Courts certain matters are handled in a particular way. I imagine that it is only by expressing such views that, to a reasonable degree, we will get the sort of service in the courts to which the people are entitled and the courts will retain that degree of confidence that they should hold in the minds of all our people.

As Senator O'Dea has pointed out, and as I tried to emphasise, there is no advantage to be derived from this right of appeal unless the decision that is made by the Minister, as in all other cases of appeal, is inoperative until the appeal is determined. If I were anxious to do so, I could cite thousands of cases of one kind or another in which, as Senator Hayes has rightly pointed out, a Minister must, every day in the week, make decisions revoking licences. There is no way out of that. There is nothing being sought here, as I have said on previous sections, that is not already conceded in other Acts.

I was also pleased to hear the description that Senator Hayes gave of me personally. It is a good thing to know that there is in the Department of Agriculture somebody who is in a hurry. We are always accused by the learned professors and all those who can talk down at agriculturists, that we are slow, slow to move, slow to take advantage of this new method, slow to do a hundred and one things. That is a view that is often taken by people like Senator Hayes.

Sir John Keane

By me.

Mr. Hayes

Did I ever say that, Sir?

Mr. Smith

It is in Senator Hayes' contribution that I am most interested now. Anyhow, he has singled me out and I am charmed with the description, as a young man in a hurry—I think it was Senator Sir John Keane who said that, as a matter of fact— and also as a man who, in the past experience of Senator Hayes, could not be safely regarded as a person who could take a balanced judgment. As a politician yes, and I hope a good and a successful one. To the extent that the Senator may have come to a hasty conclusion as to my competence to come to a balanced judgment, perhaps it was because of the display I was accustomed to, and of the impatience that developed in me as a result of the attempts of some people to regard themselves as skilful, by trying to give the impression that they were people capable of taking a balanced view of things.

I am very pleased indeed to have had the opportunity of saying a few words on my attitude towards those who say that this and similar matters should be referred to the District Courts for investigation. Senator O'Dea, as all lawyers, has the utmost confidence in them. Of course we all have, but it is not going to serve the courts or anybody else to say that we are always satisfied with decisions given there. I have no apology to make to Senator Hayes because of the fact that I made reference to this as being the amendment of a solicitor. Perhaps he thought fit to use that for the purposes of that particular gentleman. It is not the first occasion in this House that the Oireachtas has been used by lawyers for the purpose of making business for themselves.

Mr. Hayes

That is an outrageous statement.

Mr. O'Dea

I do not think that statement should be made. I am sorry the Minister made a statement like that. My experience since I came into this House is that our idea is to make Bills clear in order that there will be very little law arising out of them.

Mr. Smith

I was not talking about Bills.

Mr. Hayes

The Minister is incurable. We had better go on.

Amendment put and declared negatived.

SECTION 10.

Sir John Keane

I move amendment No. 6:—

In sub-section (1), line 6, to delete the words "in his absolute discretion" and insert instead the words "after conviction under sub-section (3) of Section 8 of this Act".

This amendment aims in the last resort at making use of the courts before a licence is revoked. It approaches the matter somewhat differently from the previous amendment. It is really the method used in the Milk Regulation and Supply Act, 1936, which is popularly known as the Clean Milk Act. In that Act the Milk Board has power over registration of dairies and milk vendors and may at any time cancel registration. I ask Senators if I am not right in saying that we are rapidly moving down the slippery path of control when we look at the distance we have travelled from the method of registration 11 years ago. Reasons are set out in the Milk Act for cancelling registration, and include when a person registered ceases to carry on business, when he dies, is adjudicated in bankruptcy or convicted of an offence under the Act. There were safeguards in the Dairy Acts regarding revocation of a licence. Bankruptcy, fraud and conviction were essential conditions. That is the safeguard I am aiming at in this amendment.

Senator O'Dea and the Minister questioned whether the machinery of the courts was adequate and fair in matters of this kind. Even if a thing cannot be proved is the attitude here a proper one to adopt? I agree that the Minister may have reports from officials, and certain evidence of malpractices on the part of a licensee which cannot be proved, but is not that fact a complete reason why they should hold against him? Yet, on circumstantial evidence, on reports or beliefs as to the reputation of an individual far greater penalties could be inflicted here than those inflicted by the courts. I grant that the courts are given certain powers, and can impose fines up to £100, but £100 fine is insignificant compared with the powers of the Minister, which might drive a man out of business and suffer loss of the capital he invested in it.

In this case the circumstances really meet the Minister's argument. The courts may inflict a nominal penalty but they have adjudged the evidence, while the Minister is leaving it to an outside tribunal to do so. Is not this instance likely to be one where a licence could be revoked? Disease might get into a hatchery, and there might be reason to believe that the owner had been buying eggs from an unauthorised source. That is probably what will happen. That is another day's work. I do not see how the Minister could prevent a licensee buying eggs from an outside source. There may be suspicion, but that should be proved in a court of law, and there is the right of the licensee, whose business is jeopardised, to be represented by counsel to challenge the evidence. That is but elementary justice to a person whose licence may be taken away.

I do not say that the Minister is bound to take away a licence after a conviction. He may let it act as a warning. Before taking a licence there must be an aggravated offence, which the Minister can prove to the justice he has in mind, even though he has little confidence in him. My amendment secures elementary justice for a person who may have sunk considerable capital in his business.

Mr. O'Dea

I wonder would this sub-section have the effect practically of nullifying the whole Bill? In order to have a licence revoked, there must be a conviction, according to the Senator, under sub-section (3) of Section 8—in other words, there must be a breach of some condition of the licence. I have a good deal of experience of reading licences and I know it is very difficult to provide in a licence for every emergency that could arise and it is only when there is a breach of the conditions of a licence that a conviction can occur.

A disease may come into a hatchery. Is the licence going to provide for that eventuality and lay down regulations for putting an end to that disease? If it does not and if the hatchery owner does not take proper steps to put an end to the disease, it would be a very serious matter. Again, is the licence going to prescribe the kind of hens that must lay the particular eggs to be hatched, or can the owner purchase eggs wherever he likes? Supposing the licence does prevent him from doing that——

Sir John Keane

Presumably it would.

Mr. O'Dea

Then how is anybody going to prove that that has occurred? If the licence prevents him from doing that, he is not going to purchase the eggs in broad daylight, but will do it privately and secretly and it will be impossible to get a conviction.

Sir John Keane

That is what I wanted to know.

Mr. Douglas

I agree with the Minister when he says there is nothing in this Bill he has not had in the Acts passed under his Government in the last five or six years. It is a pretty consistent policy adopted by the Departments and I think it is fundamentally wrong. It will not make for a healthy independent type of country, but will make people feel that they are entirely under the State or the Executive and cannot live, as the State is their prosecutor and their judge. I honestly and sincerely believe that such a policy is a mistake and will have to be checked.

Fundamentally, there is no difference between the Minister and myself, because we are just in the opposite poles, but when it comes to Senator O'Dea, with whom I find myself in agreement on many occasions, I am puzzled by his attitude. Breaches of the law done in the dark and which one could not easily see are not suitable to be brought before the courts! Those are the very type which the police and the courts have to deal with. To hand over to a Minister, say the Minister for Justice, the prosecution and punishment of crimes because the breaches of the law are done in the dark and not easily seen is just carrying it to absurdity, and I am astonished to find that advocated by him.

There will be mistakes, even when you have the best Minister in the world and the best Department. There are mistakes even if you go to the courts. Is it not better to seek some way out, by which people who have a conviction that there has been a mistake in their case and that it is not fair, may put it to an independent person?

Whereas we can do nothing at the moment, as those of us who take this view are clearly in a minority, I respectfully suggest to the House and to the Government that in the interest of good government some way should be found, in the near future, by which there could be an appeal against executive actions which affect the individual and which may take away his licence. It may be that the courts are not the best—I have an entirely open mind on that—but this idea has grown and now it is not unusual. Similar powers are contained in probably 50 per cent. of the administrative Departmental Bills that come before us. I respectfully urge serious consideration, with a view to finding some way by which the individual will not feel that he is just under the State and the Minister and that, if he cannot get some T.D. to put forward his case, he is the under dog and has no independent person to whom he can go. That is not good for politics, or for Party politics, and I do not think it will lead to the continued healthy growth of democracy.

Professor Johnston

I feel that while this clause in its present form is in the Bill it will go a long way to defeat the very object which the Minister and the House have in view. No one questions his good will and we all admire his energy and efficiency. To a great extent I have great sympathy with a young man in a hurry. We are all in a hurry to get there, to increase the prosperity of Irish agriculture, but we differ in our views as to the best way. It is our duty to express our views, when they are not those of the Minister, to try to persuade him that we have the correct point of view.

One of the main objects of this Bill is to encourage the growth of large-scale commercial hatcheries, for the sake of the country. There are about 24 of them now and it would be well if there were 240 of them. I am sure the Minister would be delighted if he could give licences to that number within the next year or two. We all sympathise with his desire to ensure that these commercial hatcheries shall operate in such a way as to increase the number of healthy poultry in the country very much beyond the present very inadequate total number of poultry. Now, a large-scale commercial hatchery is not a small affair. It is going to cost a lot financially, perhaps in borrowed capital, and will need a good deal of enterprise and expert technical knowledge.

If I were thinking seriously of establishing such a hatchery and read in this Bill the clause which says: "The Minister may, in his absolute discretion, revoke a poultry hatchery licence", I would say: "If I commit myself to this enterprise I will be absolutely at the mercy of the Minister and his Department; and though I know that Mr. Patrick Smith is a very amiable and proper person himself, I have no guarantee that his successor will not be the last word in political monstrosity." I would not feel happy about the law or about committing my fortunes to the absolute discretion of whoever happens to be Minister and, therefore, I would not sink thousands of pounds in starting a commercial hatchery. In order to get these things started, we will need to give those with the enterprise and the money some confidence that they will not be deprived of their money except in the process of law.

If you simply say that the Minister will prescribe the regulations under which commercial hatcheries will be carried on and that any person who fails to conform to those regulations will be liable to be hailed before the courts and deprived of his licence, under those terms a person would know where he stood and would know that, if he kept to a certain definite course, within the four corners of the law, he would be safe and his property would be secure. As it stands, he can have no certainty that because some queer person may be Minister and, because he did not like the colour of his eyes or of his politics, or because some of the Minister's advisers fell foul of him for some matter unrelated to poultry production, he might find these powers used against him to deprive him of a livelihood. I do not think it is capable of defence in its present form and I think some amendment on the lines indicated should be adopted.

Mrs. Concannon

I would like to see a little common sense brought into this discussion. It seems to me that on the Second Reading we accepted the principle of licensing and that our object in doing so was to put the production of eggs on a sound basis. The Minister knows enough about agriculture to appreciate the important part that women will play in this industry and that the production of better eggs will be largely in the hands of women. It seems to me that having accepted the principle of licences, the question now arises who is to give the licences and who is to do the job of licensing? It has been suggested that the District Courts in certain cases should have the final say. I am closely bound with people in the District Courts and I do not want to disparage them in any way but I must say that I do not think that the district justice could be the proper person to know whether or not a licence should be revoked. They could only decide on the evidence of the officials of the Department and the word of the person whose licence is in question.

Furthermore, I am afraid that there is a tendency to put an undue burden on the district justices who for themselves would not seek for this. It would be all right if it was a question of fact but this is not merely a question of fact. It is a question of the suitability of a person to hold a licence. There is more in the question of licensing than fact and I think we should entrust the Minister with the guardianship of these licences. If we do so, we are doing it in the interests of the country as a whole and in the interests of egg production and that will be a great advancement in our agricultural development. It is only a question of the violation of a section.

Mr. O'Dea

On a point of correction, I would like to point out that a conviction under Section 11 would not enable the Minister to revoke a licence if this amendment is carried. It must be a conviction under sub-section (3) of Section 8. A conviction for a breach of any of the regulations would not be sufficient unless these regulations were printed on the licence.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

I would like to support the spirit of the amendment moved by Sir John Keane. This type of power given to Ministers permeates practically the whole of our recent legislation and we are rapidly progressing towards a condition that is known as the servile State, where people will have to keep themselves proper and circumspect in their manners or they will find certain occupations are no longer open to them. I take the case of a licensed house. If it is right to empower the Minister to revoke a licence for a poultry station, I do not see why we should not give the same power to the Minister for Justice in regard to a licensed house. That this will lead to the maximum concentration of power in hands other than the courts, seems very clear. In reference to the remarks made by Senator Mrs. Concannon I take it that before the Minister issues licences, he would have very carefully considered all the reports he receives from his different experts and then decide whether a person concerned was fit to be given a licence.

As regards revocation, I should imagine that the Minister would be empowered in this Act to make broad regulations and should any of these regulations not be adhered to, he would have cause for revoking the licence. But in order to protect the liberty of the subject, the spirit and principle of the regulations governing procedure in regard to licensed houses should be adopted. In that event the Minister's experts would simply go to the courts and say "here is a case for revocation" and I imagine that if these regulations were properly drawn, the magistrate would have no difficulty in determining whether the licence should be revoked. In this way the liberty of the people in general is being preserved. When this House reassembles, I imagine that one of the first things it should discuss is this question of the power given to Ministers in general. Having said so much I would like to congratulate the Minister on the attempt on his part to do something for the poultry industry. As one who has sad experiences of the matter, I realise that something must be done for the industry or it will collapse. A person living in the country as I am, knows that all sorts of stratagems are adopted and therefore any measure tending to strengthen the Minister's hands, should be approved. If dark practices are being followed, somebody must know of them; why then should not those persons come along and say what they know in open court instead of saying it to the Minister? It is the principle of this amendment that I really support. I have been consistent in this matter from the first time I spoke in the Seanad.

I hope that the Minister will not think there is anything personal in what I have said, or that because Senator Sir John Keane, Senator Douglas or somebody else spoke that I am speaking. I am giving him my candid opinion, and I want to assure him that in my opinion he is attempting to do something of value. I often wonder whether, if there had been some interruption or brake on the work many years ago, our poultry industry would not be in a more flourishing condition than it is now. The view of the majority of farmers to whom I have spoken is that they will have nothing more to do with this industry because disease is so rampant. I have had that sad experience myself. You send up specimens and you get the poultry instructresses to come and see the poultry, but before a report comes back on the specimens more of the poultry are dead. I wonder if the reason for that is that we have a very highly specialised type of breeding? We find that, with all our modern science, poultry are not able to stand up to disease. That is the position not merely in this country but in England. If the Minister, enthusiastic and all that he is, occasionally finds somebody inclined to put a little brake on his activities, may I say that it might be good for himself and for the poultry industry itself.

Sir John Keane

In order to save time, perhaps I had better say that on a further examination of my amendment I find that Senator O'Dea was right in what he said about it. My intention was not to deal with the revocation of licences following on a conviction under Section 11. I was concerned more with offences against a breach of the terms of the licences and I wanted to ensure that, not until after a conviction under that head had been secured, should the licence be revoked. Accordingly, I shall try to prepare an amendment for the Report Stage to meet that.

I think it was in that spirit, too, that Senator O'Reilly supported the amendment. I cannot agree with him that this measure is likely to save the poultry industry or that it will do anything more than perhaps slightly correct the spread of disease within that industry. Any improvement in the industry must come from below—from the individual poultry people. They must be given the incentive to keep poultry, and the way to encourage them to do that is to give them freedom to do it in their own way.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 10, 11 and 12 agreed to.

Sir John Keane

With regard to the other amendments which appear on the Order Paper in my name to Sections 13 and 14, they have already been argued in principle on previous sections, and with the leave of the House I propose to withdraw them.

Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 not moved.

Sections 13 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 17th December.