Horse Industry Bill, 1970: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
1. In subsection (7), lines 5 and 6, to delete "unless the Minister otherwise directs,"—(Senator McDonald).
This morning we were discussing this amendment. The Minister was not too clear. I suspect that the Minister in including this novel piece of legislation is ensuring that in future where members of a State board disagree or do not toe the line according to the Department the board shall not be rendered ineffective by members walking out. The Minister has included this novel idea to ensure that even if they all go the chairman will be able to act on behalf of the board. I think this is quite unnecessary. In starting a new board like this we should have complete faith in the personnel to ensure that they carry out their work.
There should be no need to include any provisions like this.
In most legislation where a quorum is laid down, invariably it is fixed as being one-quarter the total number which goes to make up the board. If that quarter does not come to a whole number the next highest number is taken. One-quarter of 11 would be brought up to four. I am surprised that the figure is five.
Eleven divided by four equals two-and-three-quarters.
That makes the subsection even worse. The Minister should look at this figure of five, and fix the figure on the basis laid down in most local government legislation. This frightens me as it stands.
I think one could apply the same type of logic to this assembly here. Let Senators cast their minds back to this assembly at about 1.55 a.m. I do not think anybody would seriously contend that there was a full attendance of the Seanad, but, nevertheless, we were transacting important business.
A quorum is obviously a necessary device that must be included in the Bill in order that the board can function properly. The provision that the Minister can direct otherwise at certain times is also included advisedly because, as I pointed out last night, there may be occasions when a very quick decision is necessary. It is conceivable that on such occasions it might not be possible physically to assemble all the members. The Minister can then direct the number of the quorum. This section was amended in the Dáil and was acceptable to Members of that House. The suggestion would appear to be that it is open to abuse by the Minister. There is also a suggestion that the other members of the board would not be present at the meeting in question— they would be lying down on the job, so to speak—and that the Minister for some unexplained reason would be able to get away with this type of practice. The provisions for a quorum such as is laid down in this Bill works satisfactorily in cases of many other boards under the aegis of my Department and I would expect under other Departments also. Therefore, I can see no reason whatever for accepting the amendments and I do not propose to accept them.
From my experience of these matters there is no analogy between the meeting of the Seanad which ended at 1.55 a.m.—I was not there then—and a meeting of this board. One is a deliberate assembly while the other is an executive body. As far as I know, the normal procedure in regard to executive bodies is that it is left to them as trustworthy people to determine their own rules and regulations and it is normal to indicate that a quorum shall be a number specified in the constitution of the body in question unless the executive body otherwise determine because they realise that, say, a half dozen people are going to California in the morning so they must reduce the number from five to three. The Minister and the Seanad will realise that I am not being mischievous. We are here debating this Bill. The horse will not be dying while this legislation is going through the Houses and the Bill could possibly go back to the Dáil in the autumn, without suffering great injury, if we make good points here.
The Minister referred to various statutory provisions in which this subsection appears. The Seanad would be interested to know whether the Minister has found it advantageous to have this subsection whether, in relation to other bodies to which this subsection applies, he has been invited to give such a direction, and whether it has been found useful and necessary.
Obviously since it has been included in other Acts such as the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) (Amendment) Act, 1958, in which the relevant subsection is that the quorum for a meeting of the board shall, unless the Minister otherwise directs, be three. It is included in order to provide against contingencies such as the ones I have mentioned. I cannot conceive of any reason why this provision should be abused. I have endeavoured to point out the advantages of its inclusion. For that reason the argument against it, in my opinion anyway, does not stand up.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."
Is it not strange that a section setting out the manner in which a meeting shall take place, and the procedure of the board, should not outline the manner in which members will receive notice of meetings when they are being convened? The Minister's remark about being able to vary the quorum would seem to indicate that, from time to time, there might be a need for urgent meetings and that this was a reason why the quorum could be lowered. If the board have to meet as a matter of urgency and if the quorum is, therefore, lowered by the Minister, would that not suggest that there could be caucus meetings? That would be very wrong. A subsection should be written into the section outlining the manner in which members would receive notice of meetings.
If the Minister is looking for precedents I would point out to him that subsection (4) sets out the manner in which the members of the board will vote. It does not follow the normal precedent which is to state that the manner in which members of the board vote shall be recorded. Subsection (6) states that subject to the provisions of this Act, the board shall regulate their procedure by rules or otherwise. Is it not strange that the board are not allowed to stipulate what the quorum shall be?
I thought the amendment had been withdrawn.
The board have authority under one of these subsections to regulate its own business. Would Senator Boland mind repeating the first part of his question?
We cannot hear what the Minister is saying.
I found it difficult to hear Senator Boland.
We do not know what the Minister is saying.
It must be the late hour.
The first part of the question was in relation to the section not having included in it the manner in which members are to be sent notices of pending meetings in view of the fact that the Minister has suggested that meetings might have to take place at short notice and the Minister may vary the quorum for that reason. Rather than have it suggested afterwards that this was a caucus favourable to the Minister and who met at his behest without adequate notice being sent out——
That is a scandalous allegation.
I am suggesting that rather than having that suggestion made the section should set out clearly the manner in which the notices would be sent out.
That was a scandalous allegation. I would not answer it.
We cannot hear Senator Boland.
I do not wish to be disrespectful towards the Minister but I cannot hear him. Certain statements were made which we could not hear. That is true.
We would want to refer the acoustics to the Board of Works.
I cannot understand what the Minister is saying and I do not know what to say.
It is extraordinary that it is over the poor old horses that everything seems to be going wrong.
I mentioned this before in the House. The Leader of the House will respect me on this. I cannot hear what is going on.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."
I do not understand subsection (2) and I should like some elucidation. I would have thought that the word "income" is misused in reference to section 14 (c) where there is an exclusion of something that could not be income. You do not get income by borrowing. You get a receipt. You receive money but you do not receive income. You receive capital sums.
I would have thought that instead of the words "if the amount of the income exceeds such amount as may be determined by the Minister" the section should read "if the amount is less than the amount". Surely it is only if it is less that there will be an increase in the grant. Is that right?
I understand that the parliamentary draftsman thinks this is the correct verbiage, the proper way in which this should be expressed.
We still cannot hear the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."
Paragraph (b) provides that the board may purchase, take or let on lease or sell horses. I am sorry I was not here for Second Reading. Does this mean that the board will have a similar function to that of the National Stud in buying or leasing stallions or mares of different types?
The board can carry on transactions in horses if they so decide.
The words "other premises" might be construed quite narrowly as meaning premises analogous to offices. It would seem to me that this board, if it is to acquire horses, should have the right to own a farm. I know that at present in regard to the existing tax laws it does not matter whether one has a farm or not if one has got a stallion on the land but that law might change. It should be changed in my view. This board would have power to acquire property other than premises analogous to offices.
They have. Under section 2 "premises" means land.
I am not too happy with the Minister's explanation. I feel he is not too sure of the reply. Under this section they may buy Irish draught mares. They are a scarece commodity; they are a dying race and it is very desirable that they do purchase these. It says here: "purchase, take, or let on lease or sell horses." Can they lease stallions to farmers?
I am advised this is mainly for jumping horses.
Those horses would be leased to a school of equitation, to a show jumping committee or to somebody like that? Not to farmers?
I am advised that it is in order for the due carrying out of the functions that this provision is made and also, somewhat to my surprise, I confess, that jumping horses are not normally stallions.
I did not suggest that but they beget jumping horses. They are necessary for them.
Yes, this is not in dispute. I was reared on a farm so I understand the basic biology of it.
Will the board have the power to lease Irish draught stallions for stud purposes to farmers? If the board has not the power to do that I think the whole scheme is lost because draught horses are a dying race.
In general, yes, but the due performance of their duties is not the breeding of horses but the securing of a situation in which horses can be bred. It is not contemplated that they go in on a large scale for the breeding of horses.
I respectfully suggest to the Minister that this is very desirable. The Minister will agree that the Irish draught has become world famous for the production of the chasing, show jumping and hunter class. Due to the mechanisation of farms these are becoming much scarcer and anything the board can do to ensure that we have sufficient mares is most desirable. I feel the Minister should ensure that that aspect will be pushed forward. I feel it should be the principal function of the board.
This is the general intention.
The Minister knows that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries lease bulls for the production of high-class cattle and also rams. It is only right that when we are trying to build up this type of horse, which is becoming very scarce, the Department should lease Irish draught stallions and place them in areas where it is necessary to improve the breed and increase the number.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."
The House accepts the section as drafted.
The Minister has assured the House that the promotion of the Irish draught is a function of the board?
Question put and agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."
Are the board empowered to create tenancies? They dispose of land but say they want to build houses on it and let them to people, have they got the power under that section?
The board may well want to build a house for one of their own staff or provide some other type of accommodation on their premises.
I am just making the point. I shall leave it at that.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 18 and 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Question proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill."
Subsection (4) reads:
The Board may at any time remove any officer or servant of the Board from being its officer or servant.
I presume there would have to be grave reason for the board operating the powers under this subsection.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23.
I move amendment No. 2:
In subsection (1) (a), lines 24 and 25, to delete "or upon the terminations of such employment by the Board."
Section 23 deals with membership of either House of the Oireachtas by officers or servants of the board. Subsection (1) (a) reads:
he shall during the period (in this section referred to as the secondment period) commencing upon his becoming entitled under the Standing Orders of that House to sit therein and ending either when he ceases to be a member of that House or, if it should sooner happen, upon his resignation or retirement from such employment or upon the termination of such employment by the Board, stand seconded from such employment.
I have looked through several pieces of legislation dealing with semi-State organisations and bodies and I could not find the piece at lines 24 and 25: "Or upon the termination of such employment by the Board". This seems to be something new. I feel it is a pity because it may happen that people would offer themselves for election to Seanad Éireann. An officer or servant of this board might get a Seanad nomination from the Bloodstock Breeders or even the board itself might be a nominating body and a member could find himself elected for one term. Perhaps I am wrong but I think that under this section a man could find his superannuation discontinued and the board can just summarily dismiss him. Employees of the ESB or CIE can keep their superannuation alive and if they should cease to be Members of either House of the Oireachtas they can revert to their original employment.
This is desirable. If people from different walks of life have the flair and the ability to serve they should be able to serve as members. If this is allowed to go through it could be the thin end of the wedge and perhaps next year we would find that teachers or some other section of the community who are either directly or indirectly employed by the State if they became Members of either House of the Oireachtas would have broken service as far as their pension rights were concerned. I am worried lest this be the case here. I do not see any good reason why the Minister should want this in and, therefore, I wish to press, the amendment strongly. As I said, I cannot find a similar provision in legislation of this nature.
I should like to support the amendment. Perhaps, the Minister might be able to clear up this matter. If it means that a person who is elected to either House has to resign from his employment, then I agree that it should be taken out. It would be a tremendous infringement of civil rights. Perhaps this is tied up with subsection (c) which relates to superannuation rights and which are in question. Perhaps the Minister could clear up the problem in regard to (a) and then we might be able to discuss the problem in relation to superannuation which is of primary importance. I cannot quite understand whether subsection (a) means that a person employed by the board would have to resign his job on election to either House.
There is no question of resignation. It is merely a definition of secondment. The paragraph merely defines the beginning and end of the secondment period. The effect of the amendment would be to leave unprovided for the circumstances of an officer's employment being terminated by the board. He could hardly be on secondment from employment which he no longer held so obviously it was necessary to say that this is one circumstance in which secondment ends.
How is it that we do not have this in other State organisations such as CIE, the ESB and some other bodies? I feel that if an employee of the board was elected on a different ticket to the then Minister it would be most unfair if the board said: "You are out, and that is that".
I suggest that the Senator withdraw the amendment and we can discuss the problem on the next amendment which deals specifically with this matter.
I withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to put it down on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:
In subsection (1) to delete paragraph (c).
I should like to have paragraph (c) clarified. I tabled the amendment because I was not sure of the situation here. An employee of the board should be entitled to continue, while serving as a Member of the Oireachtas, to pay his superannuation in order to keep his pension rights continuing from the board. I think this is reasonable and this is, in fact, what is happening in every case of this kind. We have some Members in this House who are seconded from their previous employment. It is most desirable that this situation should continue. It is important that membership of the Oireachtas should be drawn from as wide a field as possible so that we can have the views of people with different backgrounds and working in different professions or occupations. People must be encouraged to offer themselves for election.
I support this amendment. As Senator McDonald pointed out, the existing situation is that people can be seconded and pay their full superannuation contributions themselves. This ensures their full superannuation benefits and rights. I do not know if the draftsman of this legislation really thought about the full effects of withdrawing superannuation benefits. You could have an employee of the board who had nine years service and if the normal period required to be eligible for superannuation benefits is, as it is under the local government code, ten years, then if that person came into this House for one year and died then his widow would be deprived of all his death benefits which would have accrued if he had stayed on and had ten years service with the board. I hope this was not the intention of the draftsman because it would be very wrong. Superannuation benefits cover a fairly wide range of benefits and not just simply a pension. The pension could be lost by the type of situation I have described. I take it this does not include sick leave benefits because normally this depends on service. If this was covered an employee could be very badly treated.
The amendment would make the section largely pointless. The aim of the section is to say what happens a man's pay and pension rights when he is on secondment. In regard to pension rights what is provided is what has been evolved by the Department of Finance as the most appropriate arrangement in present day circumstance. Formerly, Bills of this kind contained elaborate arrangements which amounted to giving a man an option of either continuing to participate in the pension scheme by paying his own and his employer's contributions or liquidating his pension rights by withdrawing all his contributions which were previously paid into the scheme.
Since the advent of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Members) Pension Scheme it is thought that contributions under this, coupled with increased contributions under the arrangements of continuing to participate in the pension scheme, would make for an undue imposition. On the other hand, very few people would wish to liquidate pension rights. Therefore, the section makes a straightforward arrangement that a man continues to be pensionable while on secondment but cannot reckon the period of secondment for the purpose of arriving at the amount of the pension. It is to be noted that it is only the pension that is affected. Secondment would not reduce the rights to a lump sum on death or widows and orphans pensions.
This does not really answer my point. If a man had not enought service with the board and came into the House and did not qualify here, he might not be re-elected, are you going to aggregate the service?
It must be remembered that Members of the Oireachtas must be successful in at least three general elections before being entitled to a pension. This section would definitely penalise an officer or servant of the board should he become a Member of the House. Last night the Minister expressed the view that he would have the best possible personnel on the board. It is to be hoped also that this board will recruit a very highly skilled and excellent staff and it might very well be that at some stage one or other will possibly be elected to this House. I do not think that, because of that, he should be penalised. The regulations which apply in the case of CIE, the ESB and other State and semi-State bodies should be incorporated into this Bill. I see no reason why people in industry and other employment should be treated differently from those employed in agricultural employment. Agriculture gets the wrong end of the stick the whole time. I wish the Minister would take this opportunity to bring about a speedy change.
It would be wrong, surely, to penalise a person in the way Senator Owens has indicated. He might have served in local government for, perhaps, nine years and he might have seven years service as a member of the Oireachtas, which would give him a total of 16 years, but at the end of the time he would find himself with no vestige of pension at all.
Remember the gardaí and the army.
Guards and soldiers are not elected to the Oireachtas.
Would Senators address the Chair?
It does seem to me that section 23 creates a new form of injustice for people who might present themselves for election to the Oireachtas and the Minister and his advisers should, I think, have another look at it. There may be need for redrafting to put this in line with other semi-State organisations in which superannuation is paid.
Would the Senator agree to raise this again on Report Stage? I am looking for some further information on this point.
Can we enter the amendment on Report Stage?
The Senator can withdraw his amendment now and reintroduce it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 23 stand part of the Bill."
Having regard to the mind of the Minister, as shown in the remarks he has just made is it desirable to prevent people of high calibre employed by such bodies as are established under this Bill becoming Members of this House or of the Dáil? I ask this quite apart from the effect of their becoming Members in terms of superannuation rights and so on. If the board think they are capable of doing their jobs well, even though they are Members of either House of the Oireachtas, is there any reason why they should not continue to work at their jobs, as many members of both Houses of the Oireachtas do at the moment? Is it right there should be a statute providing that they shall cease to retain these offices or cease to be entitled to perform these services. Is that desirable? Is it in the national interest? Is it not better that this House be filled with people who know more about horses than I do? Would it not be undesirable to have such a statutory requirement?
There might be a person doing an excellent job with the board who, if he were elected to this House, would be prohibited from continuing his work with the board. It might be that the board would take the view that he could no longer perform his job for the board. That would be quite all right because the board could always remove him and make other arrangements, but is it desirable to create such a complete block as to prevent an employee becoming a Member of this House without sacrificing something which, in terms of income, might be much more valuable to him than anything he might get by the secondment involved in this section?
This applies, I would think, to a great many Members of the Oireachtas. It is a matter of personal choice. If a person decides to enter politics he must consider the implications. We have all had to do that.
Surely it would be most undesirable to have two assemblies constituted of self-employed people only. Membership of both Houses of the Oireachtas should be open to as wide a section of the public as possible. This may very well be the thin end of the wedge. This would be a very poor place, indeed, if we did not have all the very excellent members of the various teaching professions here. I think this is a most unfortunate section. It is indicative of the Government's attitude towards the farming community. I resent it very much.
When I mentioned the army and the gardaí, the Senators said they were special cases but the Senators themselves are now quoting special cases. This imposition applies in the Milk Board and the Grain Board.
I have searched and I have failed to find it. We are not dealing with the board. We are dealing with the employees of the board.
The same imposition is there.
They have the opportunity of paying their own superannuation contributions and they retain their rights.
If we have a short adjournment at the end of Committee Stage we could then return to this problem.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Question proposed: "That section 25 stand part of the Bill."
Since the Minister has turned down the idea of a consultative committee, perhaps here he may be able to tap the brains and experience and expertise of members of the many voluntary organisations and bodies dealing with different facets of the horse industry. I should like to see a big committee which would give every organisation a voice. Can I have an assurance on that?
The board will have such power under this section to create ad hoc committees for certain purposes.
Is the Minister prepared to recommend this?
My personal opinion about committees is that the smaller they are, within reason, the more efficient their performance. I accept the Senator's opinion on this but in order to tap the maximum amount of expertise it may be necessary to have a rather large committee. It would be a matter for the board to determine. Under this section the board, if it decides, can establish such sub-committees for any given task.
Can the Minister state whether there would be any conflict between section 8 and section 25? Section 8 states:
The members of the board shall be appointed by the Minister from time to time as occasion requires but shall not exceed 11 in number.
The Minister indicates that he will consult with such organisations as may be appropriate in relation to appointment. That would mean the Minister would like to appoint members of certain organisations and would like to discuss with them who is the best man to be on the board. When the board are set up, will they have to consult with the Minister as to the personnel that will be appointed to the sub-committees?
The board can set up sub-committees as they think fit.
Would the Minister consider introducing on Report Stage an amendment to subsection (3)? This section states that the appointment of a person shall be subject to such conditions, including conditions in relation to the term and tenure of office of the member, as the board may think fit to impose when making the appointment. Under subsection (3), section 8, the period of office of the board shall not exceed five years but under subsection (3), section 25, there is nothing restricting the board from appointing committees to hold office for a longer period.
I think the intention of this section is the creation by the board of ad hoc sub-committees to carry out certain tasks. I would imagine small task forces to attend to certain tasks. The conception of a sub-committee being established by a five-year board and continuing to function indefinitely is so unlikely as to be hardly imaginable.
Under this section from the Minister's point of view there appears to be a danger that the board could legitimately delegate all their functions to a committee for a period of ten years. Although the Minister could remove the board he would find himself stuck with a committee empowered by the board with authority for a period of ten years. It is undesirable from the Minister's point of view that this possibility should exist.
The Minister has the power to remove the board.
Yes, but not the committee.
It would be a rather Alice-in-Wonderland situation if a board were dissolved by the Minister and a sub-committee of that board were left in mid-air with no funds. I would add that the point raised by the Senator is a tribute to his imagination but I do not think the situation he envisages could arise.
I will preface my remarks by saying that the term "horse-trading" was not conjured up without some foundation. I remember in 1948 I was riding at a flapper meeting in a place called Raheen and the horse that beat me was dyed. These things can happen and the Irish character does not change. In this horse industry there are so many rings, and rings within rings, that it is necessary to have strict regulations to exert some control over this industry. The rings must be taken out of the horse industry and there must be fair play for all. What should count is the quality of the stock.
I accept what the Senator has said, except his remark that the Irish character lends itself to sharp practices and similar undesirable activities. It is the function of the board and the Minister to excise from the horse business as far as possible any illicit practices such as that to which Senator McDonald was subjected in 1948.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 26.
Question proposed: "That section 26 stand part of the Bill."
I do not know whether the Department have found themselves a new draftsman but he has succeeded in making things rather difficult because many of the sections are quite incomprehensible to the layman. Section 26 states:
The Minister may by regulations under this section provide that this Part shall not apply to any class of riding establishment specified in the regulations (by reference to such matters, including the number of horses kept, as the Minister may consider appropriate), and this Part shall apply and have effect in accordance with the provisions of any regulations for the time beings in force under this section.
Can the Minister please tell me what that means?
It is difficult for lay people to understand the language of parliamentary draftsmen and, with due respect, of lawyers. As Senator McDonald knows, there are many small one-horse riding establishments in the country and in the introduction of a licensing scheme it may be desirable at the beginning at any rate to go easy on these people. There may be small enterprises growing in stature and showing promise and this allows the board a certain amount of latitude in the matter of licences.
The section states "it shall not apply" and then it states "it shall apply."
It provides for a certain amount of freedom and choice.
I think I take the Minister's point. There may well be cases that do not comply with what is required for a licence but, at the same time, it is not desirable that they be put out of existence. In that case I would have thought it would be better to make out a list of persons excluded from the requirements of licensing. Can the Minister visualise a class of riding establishment in the regulations to which the licence requirement would apply? How will that be done?
I visualise that certain types of establishment will reach licensing standard and will be licensed but there will be other types of establishment which will not reach the standard but might be working towards it. A certain amount of flexibility in this area is necessary and this section provides for it.
I accept that but how is it proposed to specify a class in such a fashion to take in all these persons who it is not proposed to oblige to comply with the requirements necessary to get a licence?
It is a question of the laying down of standards of competence, size and accommodation and the provision of equipment. We shall arrive at a norm over which licences will be issued. After arriving at a set of standards, one can reasonably be expected to be in a position to qualify for a licence. The very small operator ought not unnecessarily to be penalised. He should be left in a position to work towards a position where he can eventually become a licensed operator.
What surprises me is all this talk about class and licensing but no numbers are laid down. We all know of farmers with, perhaps, two horses who do not ride themselves but hire them out to friends who ride them at race meetings and possibly at point-to points. Will these people come into the class or will only riding schools with nice palatial premises and up-to-date amenities who hire out hunting horses, jumpers or anything of that kind fall into that class?
We begin with the assumption that all riding establishments ought to be licensed. Thereafter, the board will examine establishments individually and may decide in certain cases that it is not worth bothering about this particular case or that particular case.
It is in the hands of the board to lay down the conditions.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Question proposed: "That section 28 stand part of the Bill."
Section 28 (b) (ii) and (iii) states:
(ii) in relation to a person who acquires, by purchase or otherwise, a riding establishment the subject of a licence, during the period of three months beginning on the date of such acquisition, or
(iii) in relation to the personal representative of the holder of a licence, during the period of six months beginning on the date of the death of the holder.
I do not think a period of six months is sufficient for an individual to take out the normal probate. Certainly, three months is too short a time to get the title in order. It is simply impossible to do it in that time. It is a pity the Minister should specify time limits which from the word go, to my mind, will be non-effective.
I do not know anything about horses but I know a great deal about personal representatives. I can assure the Minister it is impossible to extract probate or personal administration within six months under the existing Finance Act if the unfortunate deceased was so foolish as to establish a private company on the advice of his advisers in an attempt to avoid duty. Two years would be a reasonable estimate of the length of time required to get probate or personal representation. Where there is a case of a person having tried to arrange to avoid duty every query that can possibly be raised will be raised by certain parts of the offices of the Estate Duty branch of the Revenue Commissioners because they are very alive to the situation. Six months is completely inadequate in this instance.
I appreciate what Senators have said. Public representatives run across this difficulty quite often but in such instances Bord na gCapall would be in a position to issue a temporary licence to cover the period involved. If the board have any sense at all they will appreciate the difficulties of the people involved and issue the temporary licence to cover the period while the legal aspects of the succession are being pursued.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 29.
I move amendment No. 4:
In subsection (3) (a), page 11, line 14, to delete "fourteen" and substitute "thirty".
The Minister increased this by one week in the Dáil but I do not think he was generous enough. Fourteen days simply is not adequate. Subsection (3) (b) (ii) states:
If the person makes a request to the Minister, within seven days...
This is an unrealistic figure. If these people were attending the Horse Show or some three-day event they would not have time to think about the post. I am surprised the Minister should penalise people in this way. Most of the people concerned are the type who get wholly involved in whatever meetings or competitions they are competing in. The prescribed time for making applications for licences should be not less than 30 days. It would be fair of the Minister to concede that.
Any period for making applications could meet with the same objection that an even greater period was needed. An amendment was accepted in the Dáil raising the period from seven to 14 days. To put the matter in perspective, it should be noted that the decision to refuse a licence can only be taken when it is clear that the applicant is not willing or able to meet the requirements set out in section 29 of this Bill. Visits of inspection and correspondence would be involved. The applicant would not be taken by surprise if he is turned down. While the section says 14 days the effective time of the notice is greater than that. The licensee will know that he is under inspection for longer than that. If he is serious and thinks the Department are being unreasonable 14 days seems ample time for him to make representations. On amendment No. 5, all that the licensee has to do is request the inquiry. Seven days seems to me to be adequate for this. It must be remembered that the intention to revoke a licence will not lightly be formed. Any man who gets notice of such intention will have ample warning. He will be expected to prepare his mind as to the course of action he will follow. In both of these cases the stipulated periods of 14 days and seven days normally afford the licensee ample time to make his representations because of the fact that he will, in practice, be under notice from inspections by representatives of the Horse Board and that his licence may well be coming under examination. He is not being taken by surprise. The amount of time made available to him is ample. I am not accepting the amendments.
The section is very fairly composed. It is a fair way of dealing with the matter of granting and revoking licences. There is almost every right given to the person concerned. I would join with Senator McDonald in suggesting that seven days was rather short. People who are good at managing riding establishments may not be expert in looking after their business interests. Holidays and curious weeks, like next one, result in people being utterly distracted. As I understand it any such notice that would be given would be given to the riding establishment itself which might not necessarily be the residence of people who are the proprietors of that establishment. It might be necessary to transmit letters. A letter might arrive on a Friday. Time might be short for doing something about it. Does the Minister lose much if he changes the period and substitutes a longer period than the seven days mentioned? The section is fairly drafted. The only point at which injustice could be caused, if Senator McDonald will forgive me, is in relation to the seven rather than the 14 days. I am happy about the 14 days but the seven days seems short. The Minister has referred to dealings between the Department and the person in question.
On the matter of weekends and holidays, that seven days still allows for a licensee to make his representations and post them to Bord na gCapall within the seven days. If he does that he is all right. It also serves the purpose that it tends to accentuate the seriousness of this matter. The underlying message is "Get with it, mate. We are serious about this".
I do not agree with the 14 and the seven days. I do not agree with Senator McDonald that 30 days should be fixed. There is a figure of 21 days. It is written into social welfare legislation in regard to appeals on old age pensions. This 21 days period sticks. In all legislation we should try, so far as possible, to stick to 21 days. I feel the 21 days will not make all that difference. People might be inclined to overlook a thing because they get a letter saying it must be dealt with within seven days.
The Senator will have heard of the six-day notice which farmers get for their land.
You mean the six-day notice and a reply in six weeks?
Is that emphasising the point? Is it taken just like that?
It emphasises the sense of importance and urgency that goes with the green letter, as it is called in the country. It serves to accentuate the fact that this is a serious matter and cannot be put in a pocket and forgotten for a month. It is no harm to leave this in the Bill.
I admire the Minister's faith in his colleague, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. Will the letter be posted on the date stated? Does the seven days start from the date of the letter? Letters from the Department of Agriculture may be delayed three or four days before being posted. In many parts of the country letters take two or three days to arrive. If a weekend intervenes the time is cut back. The Minister here may know that there are negotiations in progress to introduce a 5-day postal service.
I do not think this is a real difficulty. The time is seven days from the service of notice.
From the date the licensee received the notice?
Do not press me too much. I am not all that familiar with the postal service.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
Section 29 agreed to.
Section 30 agreed to.
SECTION 31.
I move amendment No. 6.
In subsection (1), after paragraph (d) to add the following new paragraph:
"(e) fails to maintain reasonable safety precautions or fails to provide adequate first-aid facilities for the people hiring the horses."
Despite the Minister's Second Reading speech I am not satisfied that the Bill provides in any way for the safety of riders, and especially of young riders, in the proposed training establishments and riding schools. I proposed this amendment to ensure that at least if a customer or a child who is learning to ride should fall, there will be some arrangements, or even a simple first-aid kit, to ensure that the injury will be as minimal as possible. It should be compulsory for the riders to wear helmets. These would not be unreasonable regulations to write into the legislation. While the Bill shows great concern about the condition of the quarters and about the care of the animals, there is no protection in it for the public. This has been a serious omission. In relation to section 9, the Minister in his Second Reading speech referred to the regulations and said that broadly speaking they could be summed up as concern for the welfare of the horses and the safety of the riders. However, I cannot see any concern for the riders in any part of the Bill.
Senator McDonald mentioned this particular aspect on Second Reading and I expressed the view at that Stage that riding, of its very nature, contains an element of risk. Even the riding of ponies by children contains this element of risk. Perhaps this is one of the great attractions of the sport. If regulations were to be introduced which would make it almost physically impossible to fall from a mount, then it would not be a sport any more.
As regards the use of helmets I think the Senator will agree that most riders wear the hard type of riding cap. I have noted this to be so at shows and gymkhanas all over the country. This particular type of cap is in the nature of a helmet and it is advisable that riders wear a cap of that kind. It is plainly necessary in the Bill that riding establishments have proper equipment—saddle girts, suitable harness, reins and so on in order to ensure that there is the maximum safety for riders. Thereafter a person who conducts an intelligently-run riding establishment will suit the mount to the rider. This is universal practice. A young and inexperienced rider would hardly be given a very lively horse. This will be a matter for the licensee.
Another aspect of this is that the accidents which occur inevitably in riding commonly occur at places not accessible to first-aid facilities of any real value. As I said earlier one of the intrinsic dangers of horse riding is that if one bends over too far, he is liable to fall off and stick his nose in the ground but it would be impracticable to hedge the business around with regulations. It is a matter that the board might consider in the general equipment of a riding establishment. Personally, I would not be prepared to recommend the type of equipment that it would be necessary to carry. It is not unusual for people to break a leg or a collar bone in a fall from a horse but I would not know what type of first-aid equipment one could carry to deal with a serious condition such as that. Perhaps the best type of equipment to deal with such an accident would be simply a telephone so that a doctor could be summoned immediately.
I am not at all worried about the vast majority of these licence holders but in any walk of life there will always be the few who are careless and who are interested only in making handy money. Many parents will be anxious that their children be taught to ride but children can be put off riding forever by being given an unsuitable pony. Riding is now becoming a very popular pastime and I think that the provision of helmets at these establishments should be obligatory. Surely the Minister will agree that many people or children would not have helmets of their own and I would not consider it unreasonable that licence holders would have a half dozen or so helmets available.
It is very desirable but one could hardly say to a young farmer who wishes to ride his pony down the road that he is breaking the law if he does not wear a helmet.
I am not talking about a person like that. I am speaking mainly of the urbanites who will go to these establishments. Care of tackle and so on is prescribed here and of course this is most important but the safety of the children has been ignored. Because of this omission many people or children may sustain avoidable injuries and this, in turn, will fall on the ratepayers.
I am sure the Senator fell often himself and did not suffer any serious injury.
Mr. J. FitzGerald
Senator McDonald has been speaking about the provision of crash helmets. Perhaps this would be the most useful item that could be provided apart from the usual first-aid outfit but, then, it would hardly be practicable to give a child such an outfit to carry with him when he goes riding. We must be realistic about this. The Minister's suggestion that the board will lay down certain standards is satisfactory. While we would hope that there would not be any serious accidents, we realise that accidents are inevitable in a sport of this kind. I do not know what sort of first-aid outfit one could carry around that would fix a broken leg, for instance.
Senator McDonald has suggested that a person in charge of a riding school might have available about six crash helmets but surely there would be a question of hygiene here? It is not, everybody who would like to wear a helmet that had been worn by many others.
Perhaps the insurance companies will look after these points.
Senator McDonald should consider seriously what Senator Uí Eachthéirn has said. There are many diseases of the head apart from the common dandruff and nobody would wish to run the risk of contracting any of these.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 31 agreed to.
Sections 32 and 33 agreed to.
SECTION 34.
Question proposed: "That section 34 stand part of the Bill."
I rise to make a point on this section, unbelievably, and in the faint hope that I may be in order. I was not attending to my business or to the business of the House when section 30 was going through. I wonder whether the Minister should not hesitate about bringing this part of the Bill into operation if he does not amend section 30 to limit the reading thereof in subsection (1) (c) (ii) by inserting after the word "business" the words "of maintaining a riding establishment".
Many other businesses could be carried on where the business of maintaining a riding establishment was being carried on, and these other businesses should not be susceptible to examination by the officers who are to be given these powers under section 30. I know that I cannot do more than say what I have said on this, and I wonder whether I had a right to say what I have said. The Minister might think he could improve section 30 on Report Stage by inserting those words after the word "business".
I appeal to the Senator's sense of sportsmanship.
If the Minister were accepting other amendments he might do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
