There are two amendments to this section in the name of Senator O'Donovan and if the House is agreeable, I suggest the two be discussed together. If necessary, separate decisions can be taken.
Hire-Purchase (Amendment) Bill, 1957—Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Agreed.
I move amendment No. 1:
In subsection (1), line 3, before "may" to insert "after consultation with the President of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers, the President of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the President of the National Farmers' Association, the Chairman of the Irish Banks' Standing Committee and the President of the Association of Chambers of Commerce of Ireland.
The purpose of my two amendments will be obvious to the House. In my opinion, in this small country of ours, we have had the unfortunate experience during the decade just ended of too much control of the economy being allowed to rest in the hands of a very few people. The result has been that the economy, instead of going ahead, like those of other western European countries, has lagged far behind. It is my opinion that the broader you get the volume of consultation, the less likely you are to take restrictive decisions which are unnecessary.
I do not agree, as will be gathered from the first of my amendments, that this is a matter to be handled by the Central Bank of Ireland. For one thing, the Board of the Central Bank of Ireland, in effect, consists of four commercial bankers and three civil servants, who make up seven of the nine people on the Board. On no other Central Bank board all over the world are there commercial bankers. Whatever other kind of bankers may be on these boards, the people dealing with the day-to-day financial problems of the community and the provision of credit facilities are not on the boards of Central Banks—for very obvious reasons. I have, however, in the first of these amendments given the people concerned with banking reasonable representation. I have brought in as a member of the group that should be consulted by the Minister for Industry and Commerce the Chairman of the Irish Banks' Standing Committee.
To explain what I have in mind about the first of these amendments, I should like to say that my idea was to try to cover representatives of the main sectors of the economy who should be consulted when important decisions bearing on the economy are taken and, secondly, to cover in particular the persons who might be affected adversely—there is no doubt about it—by a decision to restrict hire-purchase. Therefore, the people I put in were the President of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers, the President of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the President of the National Farmers' Association, the Chairman of the Irish Banks' Standing Committee and the President of the Association of Chambers of Commerce of Ireland.
If I were asked in this context who were the two most important of these five people in this regard, I would say the President of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the President of the Association of Chambers of Commerce of Ireland, first of all, because the people, who for serious reasons engage in hire-purchase and to whom it is what I would describe as an absolute necessity in certain respects, are the workers. There is no other way by which the ordinary working person can get an article such as a perambulator, not to speak of a refrigerator. There is no other practical method that I know of.
The other group I suggest are concerned are the chambers of commerce and why? Because hire-purchase is essentially concerned with commerce. I notice that my colleague, Senator O'Brien, brought out the point, which is of great importance, that in return for a little inflation today, brought about by hire-purchase, you get a great deal of saving tomorrow. This is a point which was made in the more serious English journals some weeks ago when the restrictions were put on in Britain.
Quite apart from my desire that a broad group of people should be consulted before a serious restriction of this sort is imposed on the community, there is my general belief that the Government should keep out of business as much as possible. Certainly, in this context, when we speak of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, we really mean the Government. The Minister for Finance is consulted by him. In my opinion again, the arrangement in the Bill is a better arrangement than if the Minister for Finance were to take action after consulting the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I shall give that much credit to the section as it stands because it is a better arrangement than if it were in reverse.
It need not be suggested that I am saying this now because I want to criticise the Government. I remember saying in August, 1954, that the Government should get out of business as much as possible. They should keep out of it. I am not saying that the present Minister for Industry and Commerce has not in other respects kept out of things as much as possible. I understand why this section is put into this Bill. I think it cannot be imputed to me that I do not appreciate the reasons for putting it in.
Nevertheless, I believe that in a democracy it is extremely undesirable that people whose knowledge of life when they become extremely busy is bounded, like a triangle, on one side, by their homes, their gardens and, perhaps, their golf clubs or whatever particular stretch of river they may fish on, on another side, by the road between their homes and their offices and, on the third side, by the four walls of their room in Government Buildings or Merrion Street. That is not a criticism of the people concerned. It is a statement of fact. That is their experience of life and it is increased only by conversation with the people they meet. They are the people upon whose advice this particular extreme action may be taken by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
I would much prefer this kind of consultation to be carried out in a formal way and that is the reason for my second amendment which reads:
"(2) The consultation provided for in the previous subsection shall take place at a formal meeting at which the Minister shall preside and the Minister may take action under that subsection only if his proposals receive the support of a majority of those present at the meeting."
I think this is a fair and reasonable proposal. If the Minister can persuade the majority of the people present that the economy is in such a condition that it requires this kind of restriction, I am quite willing that the Minister should have the power to take the restrictive action. If he cannot persuade the majority of the people named here that such action is necessary, I do not think he should have the power to take such action.
I should like to support this amendment, even though I disagree slightly with the concluding words of the mover's speech. I favour a consultation. I should imagine that subsequent to the Minister making an Order, as provided for under Section 6, the various bodies mentioned in this amendment would possibly have something to say about the matter. They would possibly have points of view, objections, etc. That would be after the Minister made a decision, a decision making an Order.
I think it desirable—I think it would be good government—that before making an Order which would affect the business community, the people who are to avail of hire-purchase, there should be this form of consultation. The point on which I disagree with Senator O'Donovan is this. I think that the ultimate responsibility and the ultimate power should rest with the Minister; that it should not be a question, as Senator O'Donovan said, of persuading this group that what he proposes or what he was thinking about is the right course.
I would say that the views of these people should be sought but having got the views, then it would be the Minister's decision. There would be no question at all of getting the agreement of these people. What I think is right and proper is that before making a decision which will affect the people represented by these groups, there should be this consultation and this exchange of views and after that the Minister can make up his mind and make an Order, if he thinks it necessary under the section.
I do not propose to accept either of these amendments and I think I shall be able to convince the House that there is good reason for my attitude. In the first place, we are a democracy and we all know what democracy means. I do not think it is right for us to try to push democracy too far, to such an extent that we shall make ourselves governed by vested interests. I am not suggesting at this stage that any of these groups mentioned in Senator O'Donovan's amendments would put forward a vested interest point of view in dealing with these matters. Nevertheless, it must be agreed that they do represent to a limited extent units of the population—limited perhaps in one degree or another. I do not know to what extent for example the National Farmers' Association could be held to represent all the farmers in the country. They may represent a great majority or no majority at all, for all I know. The Congress of Trade Unions certainly does represent, as far as I know, the organised trade union interests.
We must remember that, ultimately, the Minister for Industry and Commerce is the person charged with the administration of the Department of Industry and Commerce. He is the person who has emerged as the elected representative of the people for that purpose, and he is the person who, by the action of the elected representatives of the ordinary people, is charged with responsibility for the legislation either he or his predecessors have enacted, which is still in force. Therefore, I do not think we should attempt to derogate from the powers given to the Minister by the people in that regard. He has the ultimate responsibility. He will be responsible to all sections of the people in respect of that legislation.
The Senator himself agreed, in moving the amendment, that there were perhaps degrees of importance between the different groups. He has suggested that I should form this committee. It does not matter whether his degrees of importance are right or wrong, but the fact that he acknowledges they exist is sufficient for the purpose of my case here. I am asked to accept such a committee and to accept the majority decision of that committee. I, not as a person, but as Minister for Industry and Commerce, must be presumed, in this context, to be the most important person having regard to what I have said and having regard to the ultimate responsibility reposed in me by the people. Nevertheless, the Senator seeks to make these people, whose responsibility or importance varies according to himself, have the same functions and powers in this respect as the Minister and as one another.
I think it would be pushing democracy perhaps too far altogether to suggest that such a procedure should be followed. In any event, it would be tying the hands, not only of the Minister, but of this House in respect of legislation we have enacted, to accept that a meeting must be held at which all these groups would be present or represented and that ultimately a majority of those attending the meeting must decide in favour of the proposition of the Minister in connection with the making of any of these Orders under Section 6 of this Bill. It may be contended that this grouping is not in itself exhaustive at all. It may be suggested that one has a lesser interest than the others in hire-purchase legislation. One might ask what would be the direct interest of the National Farmers' Association in the sale of television sets. It might be suggested, for example, that the Dublin Chamber of Trade would have a greater interest——
Is the Minister suggesting that the farmers are less well off than other people?
——than any of the other organisations, in this legislation. In any event, the purpose of Section 6, and the regulations to be made thereunder, is to ensure that the interests of the public are properly looked after and as regards sub-paragraphs (a) (c) and (e) of subsection (2) which deal with the form of agreement, the visual advertisements that must appear conveying the total hire-purchase price and the cash price for which the goods might be bought and the amount and frequency of the instalments to be paid, these are designed to protect the public and the hire-purchase companies in a sense, so as to ensure that their customers will have at least an opportunity of assessing whether they will be able to live up to their obligations under their hire-purchase agreement, and so avoid the necessity of having hire-purchase companies appearing before the Courts too frequently in order to enforce the terms of the agreement.
Sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) relate purely to financial conditions within the country. They provide for the deposit to be paid and the maximum period of payments and the amount and frequency of instalments or rentals. These regulations will be made in circumstances in which the national interest requires them, where there might be a period of inflation or of a particularly adverse balance of payments. The intention is to bring in such regulations and Orders in respect of these two sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) after consultation with the Minister for Finance. So far as the other orders are concerned, in sub-paragraphs (a) and (d), the intention is, of course, to make these Orders very quickly.
In any event, it would be open to the Minister, if he feels it necessary, to consult any organisation interested. In fact, in that respect, the obvious organisation which would be most interested would be the hire-purchase companies. Whether or not they are organised for such a purpose, I do not know, but it could be contended that they should be represented. In any event, the Minister would, in the ordinary course, consult any organisation he thinks it would be necessary to consult.
There may be a case, too, that any organisation which is not represented at all within the terms of the Senator's amendment might be the one which it could be most desirable to consult in any given set of circumstances. Nevertheless, it would have no say in whether or not such regulations should or should not be made. Ultimately, there is the safeguard in any Order that is made, that it is open to be brought before either House of the Oireachtas within a period of 21 sitting days from the making of the Order, and can be annulled by a motion of a member of either House. I suggest, and I am confident, that there are ample safeguards to ensure that all interests will be properly consulted or, if necessary, properly safeguarded. I think there is no reason for the amendment, and I feel that if it does pass in its present form, or indeed in an amended form, it might hamstring the operations of this Bill and set the purpose of Section 6 as naught.
The Minister has thrown a great deal of fog over the amendment as I thought he would. He can talk as much as he likes about the matter. Sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (2) are the important part but all that the Minister has said about them is irrelevant. He ended up, also as I anticipated, by saying that the Orders could be discussed, and so on, in either House of the Oireachtas. This is an example, of course, of the kind of thing that frequently occurs when we have to deal with a matter after a decision has been taken; in other words, we are trying to put the pieces together after part of the economy has been shattered.
The Minister says we are a democracy and that we know what that means. He and his Party are very fond of saying everyone knows what their policy is, even though circumstances change or remain the same. He went on to talk about vested interests. There is no vested interest in the list of people I have made out. The list of people I have made out is a list of people who are at the head of the voluntary organisations which deal with parts of the economy which employ the great bulk of our people. I had a look at them all but the only thing the Minister or his Department could produce, is that the hire-purchase companies may want to be represented. Let me ask the Minister one question: does he mean the people engaged in retailing hire-purchase goods, or does he mean the finance houses? Which does he mean?
Hire-purchase companies mean only one thing.
Do they?
Surely.
There are the hire-purchase finance houses and there are the hire-purchase companies who retail the goods and who are different. To which does the Minister refer?
There is a decided difference, as I pointed out to the Minister. We all know that in Britain this very distinction has come up as a most important matter. There is no control over the hire-purchase finance houses in Britain now but there is control of hire-purchase. I should like precision in the Minister's reply. I do not say he intended to mislead me. I was waiting for a reply but he dissociated the remark about hire-purchase companies from his remarks about the list of groups. If he put the remark about hire-purchase companies in juxtaposition to the groups in my amendment, the absurdity would be apparent to everybody.
First of all, there is the Federation of Irish Manufacturers. They are the people who manufacture the bulk of the goods that come up for sale by hire-purchase. Secondly, there is the President of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. That is a joint body representing the workers, some of whom would be engaged in manufacturing goods and others perhaps more seriously engaged in trying to purchase them for their homes. The Minister chivvied me about the next one. I had slight qualms about putting it in but I felt it should go in for obvious reasons—the President of the National Farmers' Association. I thought they might have a somewhat more conservative point of view to express at the meeting than the other groups and I wanted to give due weight to that point of view.
There was a suggestion that the farmers are not concerned with the purchase of television sets. There is inherent in that suggestion the belief that farmers are not as well off as other people. There are big groups of farmers to whom television has so far been more readily available than to some other people. Some of them have been good enough to invite me to their houses. They have much better reception than the bulk of the city people who own the vast forest of television masts that has been referred to here on other occasions. So much for the farmers. That was my reason for putting in the President of the National Farmers' Association. I do not mind making a political point about it now. The Minister asked if the National Farmers' Association is representative of all the farmers. There is one body of farmers that is representative of a particular Party —the Irish Creamery Managers' Association. They are representative of certain farmers. It is a wonder they did not march on Dublin last year when there was a cut in the price of milk.
I did not make a jibe or chivvy, as the Senator suggests.
The Minister suggested they were not as representative of all the farmers as they might be.
I did not. I said I did not know to what extent they were.
The Minister has a large Department. Anybody in that Department could, simply by raising a telephone, find out how representative they were.
Then there is the Chairman of the Irish Banks' Standing Committee. When moving the amendment, I explained that I did not believe in the Central Bank as at present constituted and with its present powers, though, indeed, by adding a power to it, it could be made more a Central Bank than it is at present. I do not believe in the board of the Central Bank as at present constituted. I have no faith in it. Therefore, I put in the Chairman of the Irish Banks' Standing Committee who represents all the commercial banks in the country for whatever period he is in office, one or two years. Finally, there is the President of the Associated Chambers of Commerce in Ireland. Next to the President of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, I feel he is the person in the country most directly connected with this matter.
It is no use for the Minister, urged on by his managers, to come here and say I want to derogate from the powers given to the Minister by the people. I do not. He is asking for certain powers under this Bill. They were not given to him by the people because they did not exist when he became Minister for Industry and Commerce. Therefore, I am not derogating powers from him. I want to restrict powers he is now arrogating to himself.
The Minister suggested I said there were degrees of importance between these bodies. Later, he said some one of these bodies might have a lesser interest in the matter than others. I agree with that. I wanted to cover the whole economy of the country. I do not know what the Minister has in mind in making the point. I think that, towards the end of his statement, his points were purely debating points. When he says there might be an organisation more important than those I mentioned, or the hire-purchase companies themselves, he knows as well as I do there is no such organisation. If the Minister does not accept the amendment, I cannot press him to do so, but I think his attitude, far from indicating democracy, indicates the antithesis of democracy.
The Minister said democracy should not be pushed too far. I agree with the Minister. It should not be pushed too far indoors. It should be allowed out among the people. That is where it belongs as of right. He talks about getting power from people at a general election. That is so. But the Minister does not get a particular kind of wisdom or knowledge or understanding or counsel by means of a general election. All that is sought in this amendment is to put the Minister in the best position to make regulations which would be in the interest of the community as a whole. That is the simple issue. It is extraordinary that any time democracy rears its head in relation to regulations of this kind or when people express views that regulations made under various statutes are not democratic, we are told that power is provided in the statute to annul or amend or modify these regulations.
We had an interesting example of that in the Dáil last night. We see how effective it is to print a whole section in every Bill where there are regulations providing that within 21 days after each House has sat, regulations may be amended or annulled. In the Dáil last night, as far as I could gather listening to "Today in the Dáil" on Radio Éireann the Minister for Agriculture, on a motion to annul a regulation by Bord na gCon, did not make the slightest attempt to justify the validity of the regulation.
None whatever.
All he said was this—
Perhaps the Senator would not discuss that matter any further.
With respect, I think it is entirely relevant. It shows the futility of putting in a section of this kind and the necessity for an amendment of this kind. If what the Minister for Agriculture said last night is right and if the Government speak with one voice, it is relevant to this particular matter.
The Senator should not go into the merits of that matter.
Last night, the Minister for Agriculture indicated that Bord na gCon consisted of people who knew the greyhound business. In this amendment, the Minister is being asked to consult people who are interested in and know the business of hire-purchase. However, when it comes to this amendment, the Minister for Industry and Commerce takes a line in direct conflict with the view expressed last night by the Minister for Agriculture on the motion in the Dáil.
I do not want my remarks about democracy to be misconstrued in any way. I hope the attempt I heard was not a serious one. My suggestion was that we know what democracy means in this country. It means the suffrages of the people putting power in certain people's hands and taking it from them when they so wish. I am suggesting that having got such power, the person who has it cannot delegate it to others to the extent that the interests of the people can be decided by groups of people who naturally must act in favour of the interests they represent. In such a case, if one let legislation be controlled in such a fashion, the expressed will of the people might in some way not prove effective. I am not going to talk about the Creamery Managers' Association.
The Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association.
I know nothing about them. I do not know to what extent they have any interest in one Party as above another. If one talks about organised strikes, then in addition to those who, Senator O'Donovan suggests, should be represented, perhaps we should also have the people who lay on O'Connell Bridge when Fianna Fáil were in power.
It was an organised march.
This lying down on the bridge was not organised. This kind of talk does not add to a reasoned discussion on a measure like this. We can make points one against the other which are irrelevant and will not make for proper debate. I maintain that the powers given to the Minister in the Bill ought to be executed or effected by the Minister who has the ultimate responsibility and who must answer to the people for any action he takes under the Bill. If he proposes to a committee like this certain regulations which he feels ought to be made in the public interest and they can be defeated by a majority as suggested here—in fact, a majority might not prove possible at all, for the Minister could not have a vote—it could be an equal vote with the six interests represented—and if the regulations he proposes are not accepted as a result of majority vote, this is not the way in which we as a responsible Oireachtas should order our business.
It is up to us to give the power of putting through legislation and seeing that it is carried out to a Minister who is responsible to the people and who will have to answer ultimately to the people for any defects in his doing of these things. I do not think the points made in reply to my arguments by Senator O'Donovan or Senator O'Quigley have in any way defeated the strength that I think is in my argument. I do not think the amendments are acceptable. I do not think that even if they were acceptable, they would be workable, particularly in a case when swift action was necessary, as was necessary during the period of office of the previous Government in order to adjust a serious balance of payments position.
On such an occasion, it would be wrong to tie the hands, or even appear to tie the hands, of the responsible Minister or the responsible Government who would have to take certain measures in the interests of the people as a whole, and to entrust the taking of such swift action to such a procedure which, in any event, could prove abortive by the refusal of one or other of these groups to attend, thus thwarting the purpose of the section and the legislation enacted by this House.
The Minister's last sentence gives the game away. The pretence that the non-attendance of one of these people would render the meeting abortive is an absurdity. The Minister is just making a debating point.
Read the amendment.
Is the Minister speaking as a lawyer? I am not a lawyer.
I am speaking as Minister for Industry and Commerce.
Did the Minister consult a lawyer? This is all cod, a point not worth answering.
If that is so, why bother? Let us get on with the debate.
I am in possession now. As I say, it is just a cod, a ridiculous, absurd, babyish point, and the Minister knows that as well as I do. It has been said that the price of democracy is eternal vigilance. One aspect of vigilance is to fight the managers taking over complete control of everything in the community, including legislation and in particular, the Legislature. This kind of provision which I am proposing would be an antidote to something well known all over the world. We may not say a word about the different companies whose operations cover a multitude—therefore, we hand over a large chunk of the economy to them absolutely. We may not say a word about how advice is to be given to the Minister—therefore we hand over another section of the economy to the Minister. A far abler man than I said to me on a certain occasion: "John, there is always elasticity in these crises" and he is perfectly right Anybody who has to dream up something about the balance of payments or something like that to justify this kind of legislation is hard put for genuine arguments about it. I thought that perhaps the Minister might meet me. There was a simple way out for him in this matter. I thought he was a responsible man, but of course he had the sad experience before him of the Parliamentary Secretary who accepted a reasonable amendment and found the then Minister, now the Taoiseach, come back and say it was a stupid amendment.
The Senator is going very far.
It is time to come to the Bill.
I have been keeping very closely to the amendment, because it is an amendment concerning ultimate control. I object to the phrase "the good of all the people" being brought into this thing at all. It is so nebulous that it is worthless in this kind of argument. It can mean anything. I am unrepentently against swift action in this matter; therefore, I think these amendments have considerable merit and certainly the first is one to which there is no answer.
The Minister has not gone any distance to meet reasoned argument. Is there anything to prevent him from doing as provided in many statutes of the Oireachtas, having consultations with various interests upon a particular matter? Is there anything to prevent him making his regulation after consulting the functionaries mentioned in the first amendment? I do not think there is. I do not think that if he consults with various interests, he is in any way derogating from his authority or delegating his responsibility to any section of the community. The Minister has entered on the subject of democracy and said that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is a person who has power from the people and cannot delegate it. I wish people would realise what the constitutional position is when they talk about democracy and who has the power. Parliament can decide anything, subject to the Constitution, and if Parliament decides that the Minister for Industry and Commerce may make regulations, after consultation with certain specified people, there is nothing in that which in any way offends against any principle of democracy.
I have listened to the discussion on these two amendments. I had an open mind when I first read them and listened to the proposer's speech, to Senator O'Quigley's speech and to the Minister's reply.
It seems quite clear to me now, having listened to this discussion that the Minister is perfectly right and that he would be wrong to surrender his right to make the decision. As he points out, he is responsible to Parliament and if in fact he wanted to take steps along these lines and was prevented because he could not get a majority of these select bodies to agree with him and if there were an economic disaster arising out of that situation, it would be a very odd excuse to say that he wanted to do it, that he wanted to act in the interests of the community but that his hands were tied at the time. It would be necessary then to go along and find out which of these bodies, the trade unions, the bankers, the National Farmers' Association or some other body, constituted the majority which voted against the Minister and prevented him taking action which the Minister and the Government considered necessary for the sake of the community.
The Minister is quite right and I think he made a very good case in moderate tones for the retention of the power to make the decision and be responsible for it. There is nothing to prevent him consulting such groups; there is nothing in the Act to prevent that. I am satisfied that all these groups are sufficiently vocal to make their opinions known to the Minister. In such circumstances, I do not feel that it would be right to pass these two amendments, particularly the second one which would bind him to decisions of a meeting which is in no way answerable to Parliament. That is where I think the Minister is right and the proposers are wrong.
There is really no use pretending that these people would not, each in their own way, have a vested interest, because they are vested interests. Unless you regard a vested interest as necessarily being bad in every way, there is no use denying that each in their own way would have a vested interest. This would be giving to the vested interests a power of veto over the Minister and I think the effect would be obstructionist. The Minister has established his case very well.
I can see the difficulty in regard to the second amendment inasmuch as the situation we must think of is one where there would be a credit squeeze or a national crisis. At that stage we all have to swallow bitter pills and where business is affected, it could well be imagined, for instance, that certain of the presidents of these various organisations mentioned would have vested interests and would not be desirous of swallowing the particular pill.
If the second amendment were withdrawn, I wonder would the Minister consider the first amendment? I have not had any consultation with Senator O'Donovan about this matter but if he were prepared to withdraw the second amendment, would the first amendment not give a proper forum to these people to make their views known, even privately, to the Minister and in a regulated manner so that in fact before he made his Order, he would have the advice and the experience of these organisations set before him in a proper way? That might be the half-way house. Perhaps it would help Senator O'Donovan, who, I am sure, is quite honest and sincere in what he tries to do and at the same time, it would leave the Minister in a position in which quite frankly I personally think he should be left, inasmuch as, at a time of crisis, he would have the right to prescribe the pill, unpalatable though it might be.
The Minister is quite right in resisting both these amendments, for the simple reason that when you come to consider a matter like hire-purchase, the Government must be the chief arbiters. No matter what anybody may say to the contrary, no group or series of groups should have the right to dictate to the Minister. All the various groups mentioned in the amendment can make representations at a particular time. To give an example, when Budget time comes, the various chambers of commerce can make themselves effectively heard and they can clamour in their own interests. The same thing holds for hire-purchase. If any particular group are interested, they have the right of representation to the Minister who is responsible to the Houses of the Oireachtas, which after all should be the chief arbiters in this matter.
I should like to say, partly in answer to Senator Carter, that we do not want a clamour when there is a national crisis. A regulated and proper forum in which the proper representatives, who surely are the presidents of these associations, could privately make their views known to the Minister, is, I think, a good thing. We had a credit squeeze in 1955 and in 1956; we had these bitter pills which we had to swallow. During that time, I was in the Dáil as a member of one of the Parties which formed the Government and the most irritating thing was the public clamour of vested interests outside who sought to lead the people to believe that what was being done was not necessary and was not for their good.
Therefore, I feel that the first amendment, giving a regulated forum to proper people to express the views of their organisations, is a good thing. It would strengthen the hands of the Minister and give him private information properly produced and would bind these organisations not to make a public clamour or to make the Minister cease from doing something he was about to do. If the first amendment were accepted, if Senator O'Donovan were prepared to withdraw the second amendment, the Minister might find his hand strengthened and his position much more easy in the case of a national crisis if he had this regulated forum in which these people could make their case.
There are good reasons why I cannot accept Senator Donegan's suggestion. In the first place, the Minister would be obliged to consult the presidents of these organisations. It could be that the presidents would not be available for one reason or another, because of illness or absence from the country. That, if you like, is something that could be provided for and the vice-president or someone else could be consulted instead, but again we are getting into an unwieldy system of consultation which I think is unnecessary. Senator O'Donovan said that he was against swift action and I feel sure that he must have known of the swiftness of the action taken by the former Minister for Finance when he had to take certain measures when he felt the financial circumstances of the country warranted them. If he does not know to what extent swift action was taken, then I advise him to consult the former Minister for Finance.
I can get more amusement out of that than the Minister can.
I know the Senator did not always agree with his colleagues in the former Government on financial questions. Whether he was right or wrong, I do not know. There is one other good reason why such consultation would be difficult and undesirable in certain circumstances. Knowledge comes to the Government or to Ministers of the Government about financial matters and the regulations that are sought to be made under Section 6 of the Bill would concern such financial matters and might well have repercussions on the Stock Exchange and other forms of transpresiden actions. It would, I think, be wrong for the Minister to disclose certain things as he would have to disclose them to a meeting of individuals who would have no ultimate responsibility to the people. Individuals, whether by accident or otherwise, might disclose information to third parties that would cause runs in one line of stocks or another.
There are these difficulties. They are practical difficulties and there is no use in the Senator smiling at them. He knows well that they can arise. I have experience of being told of certain situations which, if I had mentioned them even in the slightest whisper, would, perhaps, cause movements in Stock Exchange transactions that would be undesirable. One can readily see in such circumstances where a firm of radio manufacturers or a firm engaged in the production of household goods, electric irons or cleaners of one description or another, might find their capital issues affected by discussions or disclosures of details in these discussions which might necessarily take place prior to the making of some of these Orders.
For these reasons, I say there should not be consultation with outside bodies of the nature concerned in this instance. There will be ample opportunity, and there will be occasions when it is desirable, for consultation with such bodies as are mentioned in the amendment and it is more than likely that such consultation will take place. There are circumstances, I submit to the House, in which it might be not only undesirable but improper for a Minister to engage in such consultation.
The Minister is, of course, drawing upon his imagination when he talks about the unwieldy system of consultation to consult five bodies. He made use of the usual hocus-pocus. He practically said that there would be a run on the banks. He said that there would be a run on the shares or something like that. "Knowledge comes to the Government about financial matters" but I say with all respect to the Minister that the kind of knowledge that comes to the Government is very often inadequate and very often doctored.
What I want to achieve by this amendment is that the Minister and the Government will not take action on inadequate and incompetent advice. The Minister is not prepared to accept the first of these amendments. In regard to the second one, I wanted to make quite sure that it would be a proper democratic decision but since the Minister apparently believes in only a limited form of democracy, I would have been quite willing to withdraw——
I would prefer that the Senator would not try to misrepresent me.
The word "democracy" means different things to different people.
We are talking about democracy in the context of what we are doing in this House.
In the context of what we are doing in this House— giving additional powers to the Minister. I understand what we are doing in this section. We are giving the Minister a great deal more additional power than he has at present to muck around with the economy. This is what we are doing in this section. I do not misunderstand the section at all. As I say, I want to broaden the basis of the advice open to the Minister to ensure that he will not depend entirely on people whose sole movement is from their own houses to their offices for eleven months of the year. These are the people on whom the Minister is depending—these people who live, in a sense, in cells. They are under the rules of the Official Secrets Act. They cannot disclose their business to anybody. That is the only source of information open to the Minister except such information as the Minister might get from his own colleagues apart from the managerial advice he might get.
I did not think that the Minister would go so far as to accept the second of these amendments. I expected he would accept the first. The first of these amendments does not in any way take from the Minister's powers but it is quite obvious that the Minister and I have not the same views about democracy and I do not propose to press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
I move amendment No. 3:
Before subsection (3) to insert a subsection as follows:—
( ) An order made under this section may provide special terms, by way of reduction on the amount of deposit or extension of the maximum period of payment, or both, for goods manufactured, partly manufactured or assembled in the State.
I must admit that this is a point which I raised on the Second Stage of the Bill. The Minister assured me that he had certain power to differentiate between goods manufactured in this country and elsewhere by way of reduction in the amount of deposit or extension of the maximum period of payment but it seems to me that it might be very difficult for the Minister to make the differentiation where there are two objects of exactly the same description. Would he have the power to make the differentiation in the case of two objects of exactly the same description?
My main reason for putting down this amendment was to ensure that it would actually appear in the Act. It is not in the previous Act. I think it should be in the Act and for this reason: if a finance company or a hire-purchase company wanted to see what the position was in this country, it would be obvious to them from the start of their considerations and plans that they might, perhaps, get better terms if they dealt in goods which are manufactured here or even assembled in this country. For that reason, I should like to see incorporated in the hire-purchase legislation that we were prepared to give better terms and more encouragement to goods manufactured here. I would ask the Minister to consider this amendment seriously.
In reply to the Senator's suggestion in his Second Reading speech, which suggestion is embodied in this amendment, I told the Senator then it was my conviction that I had powers such as he suggested to ensure, if necessary, that special preference would be given by way of deposit, periods of payments, etc., in hire-purchase agreements in respect of Irish as against foreign-made goods. I made assurance doubly sure since then and particularly since the Senator submitted his amendment by consulting the Parliamentary Draftsman who advised me that the power which I told the Senator on Second Reading I had I in fact have. Therefore, I suggest that the Senator's amendment is not necessary.
Due regard will be had to the purpose of the amendment when regulations come to be made. I do not think any Minister for Industry and Commerce would fail to have such regard to the interests the Senator suggests ought to be served. There may be certain difficulties in identifying our Irish-made goods or partially Irish-made goods as against foreign-made goods, but as the amendment stands, I suggest it does not ease the solution of that problem to any degree. Therefore, I suggest to the Senator that the amendment is not necessary because the powers are there already. I give the Senator my assurance that if I felt that a provision in the Bill such as he suggests were desirable and if it were found possible or feasible, I would put into effect the purpose of the amendment.
Does the Minister not think it would improve the Bill, for the sake of those who are studying the matter, to have it included in the hire-purchase legislation?
It would not improve the legislation, as I said. On the contrary, it would make the Bill bigger. People who study the legislation will not have any powers, anyway. The Minister will be the person entrusted with the powers under the section, and the Minister, as I said, must inevitably give a preference to Irish-made goods, whereever he can do so without harm to the country or to the economy.
Would the Minister not think it would be better to make the matter explicit? The hire-purchase people may not be so well informed and advised as the Minister and when they read the Bill and see it explicitly laid down, it would help them. The Minister had to consult his legal advisers to make sure about the powers. They might not have legal advisers to consult and they might overlook the fact that they have this opportunity. I think if we included an explicit statement in the Bill, it would be helpful. I support Senator Cole.
The Order that would be made by regulation under Section 6 would, in fact, contain what Senator Cole's amendment now contains and the Order would be the effective instrument, not the section of the Bill, for that purpose.
I am satisfied in that case.
I think I referred to this point when it was raised by Senator Cole on Second Stage. I think it would serve notice on the people engaged in the sale by hire-purchase of commodities that, in the event of an imbalance arising in our import and export trade, they would fare better if instead of buying imported goods, they bought home-manufactured goods where they could be got in this country. For that reason, I think it right and proper to put this into the Bill and, here and now, to serve notice on the people who engage in hire-purchase to the effect that, when regulations come to be made—and particularly when regulations come to be made dealing with the minimum deposits because of certain balance of payment difficulties—the shopkeeper or trader who has bought, for sale by hire-purchase, Irish-manufactured or Irish-assembled goods will not be hit as hard by the restrictions which may be imposed as will the person who is selling imported goods. It would be very desirable for that section of the business which does such a volume of trade to lay that down explicitly in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill.
Whatever we may say about the granting of powers to the Minister to make regulations, once it appears that the Minister is to have the powers, there is one matter to which I should like particularly to draw his attention. He is probably aware of the form that hire-purchase agreements take, but one thing is particularly noticeable about those agreements. The type of print used in some of them is of such a small size as to render them almost illegible. The House will be well aware of the rumpus which was kicked up when the last issue of the telephone directory made its unhappy appearance before subscribers. Apparently the people concerned with hire-purchase are not as vocal as the users of the telephone. I am quite satisfied in my own mind that there must be hundreds of people who, because of bad sight, bad spectacles, or no spectacles, are, with the best will in the world, quite unable to read the provisions of the agreements which they sign as having read and understood.
In this connection, there are in the Hire Purchase Act certain conditions which they are statutorily obliged to print on the agreement form. They are provided in the Schedule to the Hire Purchase Act, 1946. It is making a nullity of the provisions of the legislation of the Oireachtas if hire-purchase companies can print those agreements in such a way as to make them quite illegible. I hope if one good thing is to emerge from this section, or the regulations to be made under it, it will be that the Minister will fix a standard type, or a minimum standard type, to be used in the printing of those agreements. I can assure the Minister from the information I have received, that any such regulations which he might make, would be welcomed by the trade and by the people who avail of hire-purchase.
I think many of us in the House would entirely agree with this point which was also raised by Senator Sheehy Skeffington on Second Reading. May we be assured by the Minister that he has powers under the Bill to insist on a certain format for these forms? It would be very sad if, when this Bill had been passed, he found that he had not those actual powers.
I readily admit that when the Bill was drafted it was not intended to cover that point but I think on recollection and re-examination of subsection (2), it was decided not to take the matter into account. Subsection (2) simply says:
Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing or to anything in the Principal Act, an order under this section may provide for—
(a) the form of the agreements referred to in subsection (1) of this section,
To my mind, that would cover the size of the print. If it is possible to identify, or to describe in words, that certain print must be of a minimum size it would be worthwhile to find out whether such provision should be made in the regulations. I undertake to the House to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 7 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 23.
Government amendment No. 4:
To add to the, section the following subsection:
( ) The Schedule to the Principal Act shall, as respects hire-purchase agreements to which subsection (1) of this section relates, have effect as if ‘Right of Hirer to terminate Agreement' and the first four paragraphs in the notice therein prescribed were deleted.
This amendment is consequential on an amendment I moved in the Dáil, which was accepted. The amendment I moved in the Dáil was to remove from the scope of the Bill hire-purchase transactions in respect of industrial machinery exceeding £200 in value. I explained to the Dáil that the amendment was introduced at the specific request of the Industrial Credit Company who found that it limited them in the manner in which they could come to the assistance of industrialists who required machinery on hire-purchase terms.
The difficulty they found was that under the Bill as it stood an industrial company who purchased machinery with the assistance of the terms made available to them by the Industrial Credit Company could, if they so wished, having paid a certain portion of the instalments, return the machinery to the Industrial Credit Company without any further obligation. It was decided—I think it may have happened—that the machinery which might be highly specialised might be so obsolete at that stage as to be worthless to the Industrial Credit Company and would be incapable of being disposed of by them, for any cash. The Dáil rightly accepted that amendment and saw the wisdom behind it. The amendment I now propose is an amendment consequential on that amendment.
This is an excellent amendment. It is obvious that the sort of situation envisaged is not applicable to industrial machinery. I think the amendment should be acceptable to the House.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 23 as amended, agreed to.
Sections 24 to 29, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I understand that while I was absent the Minister undertook to look into the type of hire purchase agreements. Therefore, it would not be possible to give all stages of the Bill today. Senator O'Quigley asked the question.
I said I would accept a suggestion made by various Senators —I think Senator O'Quigley and Senator Stanford in particular and Senator Sheehy Skeffington on Committee Stage—that the type in hire-purchase agreements should be of a minimum size. I said I did not know if type could be described in size but that I thought that, under Section 6 (a) (i), I had power to prescribe minimum type. I undertook to look into that and to make the Order in accordance with the wishes of the Seanad, if I though it could be done.
We see no difficulty whatever about describing type by the numbers given to the printers— 12-point, 8-point or whatever it will be. Therefore, I hope the Minister will take steps to see that these forms are clear and legible.
My undertaking was to look into the matter favourably and see if it could be done.
Question put and agreed to.