In regard to Section 5, I would like to raise a point in respect of the licences of factories which have been recently, in my opinion, getting into the hands of people who I think are undesirable. I would like to bring that to the Minister's attention.
Agricultural Produce (Meat) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1954—Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
I am not aware of the existence of any circumstance that would give rise to such an apprehension on the part of the Senator.
I would draw the attention of the Senator to the fact that this section only provides for the addition of conditions to existing licences and spares the Minister for Agriculture the necessity of revoking existing licences before he can add any new conditions to them. As the Senator has mentioned the point perhaps it is right that I should tell the Seanad the general principle which guides the Department of Agriculture in determining whether licences should issue or not to any citizen of the State to enter the fresh meat business.
The principle is that certain regulations are laid down as to the character of the premises, the equipment available upon it, and the ability of the applicant to carry out the regulations made by the Minister for Agriculture in order to ensure the quality of the meat sold from the premises.
If any citizen of the State is in a position to comply with these requirements, he is entitled to be licensed. If, at any time, his subsequent conduct under licence is of a character to jeopardise the good name of the fresh meat industry of the country, and if after suitable warning and remonstrance and advice, where necessary, as to how to put his house in order, no improvement were found, he would be eliminated from the trade by the withdrawal of his licence.
I need hardly tell the Seanad that is an extreme remedy to which, I think, recourse has never yet been had, but I avail of the Senator's intervention to say now what I think might want to be said, that owing to the considerable expansion of the dead meat industry it would be any intention to be ruthless in the enforcement of regulations designed to ensure that carcase meat sold from any licensed premises in this State, on the home or foreign market, should conform to the highest possible standard, and that if any licensee, having been advised, or having had his attention directed to shortcomings in the administration of his establishment, failed to put them right, I would deem it my duty ruthlessly to remove him from the trade for the protection of the industry as a whole.
Senator Prendergast has raised what seems to me to be a very important question in relation to the Minister's power to amend regulations in regard to the holders of manufacturing licences. In recent years we have built up a considerable trade in the export of dead meat. It is quite possible that at some time or another one of these undertakings may come on the market. I should like to have a definite statement from the Minister providing that, as regards the sale of the goodwill of that particular firm, no new conditions would be attached to the giving to it of an export licence. Section 5 of the Bill provides that Section 34 of the Act of 1934 be hereby amended, and then the Minister may by notice in writing give to a Holder a manufacturing licence on certain conditions. I raised this point on the Second Reading of the Bill. I felt convinced that I had extracted from the Minister then a guarantee that there would be no new conditions attached except the condition that would be attached to every other licensed holder. Having listened to the Minister to-night, I am not convinced that he has related the statement he has just made to the guarantee that he gave on Second Reading.
I am happy to be in a position to reiterate to the Seanad and to Senator Hawkins the assurance that any condition applying to any licence Under this section will apply to all licences. The sole purpose of this section is to remove the present cumbersome necessity of cancelling the whole licence in order to introduce a new condition. Under the existing law, every licence in Ireland would have to be cancelled and, presumably, business suspended until a new licence issued. This is merely the machinery to enable us to introduce a new condition into licences attaching to meat premises. The Senator may rest assured that a new condition applying to any licence of this character will apply to all licences of this kind.
Would the Minister be prepared to say that, where circumstances entail the transfer of a licence from one individual to another or from one company to another, the same conditions will apply?
No, because that would create a category of licences which were not subject to the general rule that any new condition would apply to all licences. I think that if I were to give the undertaking which the Senator has asked for it would mean that if "A" transfers his licence in the ordinary course of business to "B" and if in the course of the next 12 months it became necessary for me to insert a condition which was to apply to all licences I would have to exclude the licence that had been transferred from "A" to "B". I forget at the moment the number of licences there are, but whatever the number be, if there is a new condition inserted in any one of them that identical condition will attach to every other licence in existence in the State at the same time.
The Minister is a person who has been engaged in business for a long time. He knows well that there is what is known as the goodwill of a business. That means a good deal. Suppose I am engaged in this particular industry and for some reason or other I decide to sell my interest in it. What I want to ensure is that the person who will buy my interest, my goodwill in the industry, will get from the Department the same consideration as if I were the person who had continued to carry on the industry.
I do not think that the fears which Senator Hawkins has given expression to exist amongst the members of the trade, nor do I think that what he has said is going to happen. Nothing of the kind happened in the past under any of the Governments we have had here, and I do not think that such a thing is likely to happen in the future. If the interests of a person and the money he has invested may be revoked by a stroke of the pen, we have a democratic institution here where these questions can be raised and must be answered. I do not think many holders of licences have any fears or that the fears need to be allayed at present.
The Senator may not have adverted to the fact that this amendment of Section 34 applies only to people engaged in the canning of beef—of which there are about 20. I do not know whether the Senator's apprehension is that some canner contemplates selling his business to a new proprietor. If that is what he has in mind, what I said in reply to Senator Prendergast should allay his anxiety.
I cannot judge of the character of a new entrant into the trade except by his performance. If he is a citizen in good standing and conforms to the conditions, I must presume he will carry out the regulations. If he fails to do so, it is my duty to admonish him, to point out his shortcomings and offer him assistance in carrying out the regulations. It would be only after full investigation, where a person was maliciously and dishonestly violating the regulations laid down for the protection of the consumer, that I would contemplate withdrawing his licence. That covers the question of goodwill.
I understood the Senator to ask also if one of the existing 20 canners could suddenly find a condition inserted in his licence that did not apply to the other 19. That is not so. If a new condition is inserted in one it will be inserted in all. I trust that clarifies the position.
If any licensee did not comply with the regulations, would the Minister object to the premises being sold and the business being carried on by someone else who would comply with them? It would be hard if the whole business could be made of no value by the stroke of a pen. I do not imagine that the Minister would object to its being sold to some reasonable and honest person. If it were revoked entirely, it would put the workers out of business, just because a managing director, say, was an unscrupulous person. An effort might be made instead to remove the unscrupulous person.
The Senator will have sympathy with me, as the answering of a hypothetical question might lead me on to the most extraordinary dilemma. I can conceive a situation in which a licensee so grossly outraged the regulations that it would become the duty of the Minister to put him out of business on the ground that his conduct was so reckless that he ought to be put out. However, the premises would remain and it would be open to another person to purchase and start up again, conforming with the regulations.
The Department of Agriculture constantly bears in mind that it is the servant of the people and not their master. It is with the most profound reluctance that we would ever approach a self-respecting citizen, great or humble, with the ultimatum that we were going to wipe him out. Such a necessity has never arisen. When anything has gone wrong, it has almost always been proved to be through want of advice or assistance to get the premises straight and the practice straight. On that being provided, everything has worked satisfactorily.
I do not want to dwell on unhappy instances in the past, but there were one or two cases where the Department withdrew a licence. If the Seanad knew the details, it would cordially endorse what the Department did. These things were not done while I was Minister but while my predecessor was Minister—and he was perfectly right in what he did. I am sure the Senator would not wish me to rip up old cases that were effectively disposed of.
Mr. Sheridan
As a member of the live-stock trade, which is slightly allied to the dead meat trade, I support the Minister in his attitude. The dead meat Industry is a very large one in this country, now running into millions. His desire is that the dead meat produced here will be placed on the market second to none, and any Minister who is striving to do that is doing a good job for the country. If he is severe in his examination of the factories, that is all to the good of this trade. If men in the industry cannot measure up to the requirements, he is right in taking power to see that the regulations are carried out. This is not a tin-pot industry but one with a great future. Therefore, instead of quibbling on little points, we must accept his assurance that whatever treatment is meted out to one will be meted out to all. I think that his statement is quite lucid and is understandable by anyone here.
I am pleased to have heard from many sides of the House of the importance of this dead meat trade. It is a new venture, or was in recent years, on behalf of our people. It was not started with very much enthusiasm. For that reason, I have striven to elicit from the Minister to-night certain guarantees—that those who were the pioneers, who saw its importance and who for one reason or another may find it necessary to dispose of their interest or of the whole manufacturing process of their industry, will not find themselves in competition with those who came in recently. The Minister is a businessman and has had long association with business. He must have a very keen appreciation of this question of goodwill. He tried to satisfy me on that point, but I am not satisfied that the suggestions he put forward are sufficient for those who invested their money in an Irish industry and who may wish for any reason to dispose of their interest.
I have no doubts with regard to the present Minister, as I had no doubts about the previous Minister, but we are dealing with a Bill which gives these powers to future Ministers, and, while the Minister here to-night might be prepared to give us a verbal guarantee that such and such was not his intention, that is of very little use when an Act comes before the High Court. It is then approached on the basis of what the Oireachtas in their wisdom thought should be enshrined in it and I should like to have something more substantial from the Minister that, where there is a sale of an undertaking of this kind, it will receive from the Department a certificate as to the continuation in operation of the particular industry until such time as something occurs by reason of which the licence might be revoked. We should not leave it to the discretion of a Minister, even this Minister, who is a very human person and who may change from day to day. The guarantee which we get from the Minister to-night that these people, who were pioneers of this industry, will not suffer by reason of an adverse decision may not hold in the case of a future Minister.
Frankly, I do not quite understand what the Senator's difficulty is. I do not think he can ask to have withdrawn from the Minister for Agriculture for the time being the right to withdraw a meat canning licence from a licensee who has recklessly or maliciously offered diseased or bad meat in cans. The final sanction, after you have done all you can to get the licensee to conform to the requirements necessary to maintain the standards, is to say: "If you will not maintain these standards and if you will not let us help you to maintain these standards, we will not allow you to retain your licence to can meat, because you are a menace to the consumer and put the whole good name of the Irish canning industry in jeopardy." Therefore, for myself and for my successors, I must ask the Seanad to leave that power in the hands of the Minister for Agriculture.
If the Senator has any apprehension that a Minister, for reasons of personal spite, or for some reason of that kind, would try to create unreasonable difficulties when one firm sought to sell their business to another firm, or when one individual sought to sell his canning business to another, nothing I can say will reassure the Senator, except to remind him that every citizen of this State has recourse to his parliamentary representative, who can question the responsible Minister in Dáil Éireann as to why he has done something which is unfair and unjust. If the Minister treats any individual citizen of the State, in the exercise of his powers, inequitably, he must answer in Dáil Éireann for it and the matter can be raised on the Adjournment or can be made the subject of a motion and a division in the House. I think that is the only guarantee of an absolute character that is available to any citizen of the State.
If the Senator is, however, concerned to have an assurance which he will be quite free to quote and to point to, he can be assured by me that there can be no question of using these powers for the purpose of injuring any person who desires legitimately to transfer his business in the ordinary course of trade. There can be no question of any Minister hereafter using these powers to impose a condition on one canner that will not apply to all canners. If there is any more exhaustive guarantee the Senator wants, if he will formulate it, I shall be very glad to consider whether I can give my assent to it, but I think he will sympathise with me that, if we envisaged every conceivably hypothetical case, that could occur to our minds, no Minister will undertake off the cuff to answer back. I can only lay down general principles, but I assure the Senator that it is my intention, and would be the intention of my successors, I cannot doubt, to abide by it.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9, Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take remaining stages now.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.