No. 37 might be regarded as consequential on No. 38, and we will take the two together.
SECTION 38.
The following amendments stood in the name of Captain Cowan :—
37. In sub-section (1), line 8, to delete the words " victualling house " and substitute the words " place of public refreshment".
38. In sub-section (1), after paragraph (b), to add a new paragraph as follows :—
"(c) Inns, restaurants, board and lodging houses, milk bars, public dance halls, communal halls, halls owned by local authorities, cafés and refreshment rooms."
I move No. 37. Its purpose is to distinguish between a victualling house and a place of public refreshment and to put in its place " a place of public refreshment." The reason for that amendment is that the words " victualling house " seem to be archaic. Certainly it is an antique description and the words are not used in modern times. I feel that better words could be used than this outdated phrase. If you go into a country village nobody would know what you were asking for if you asked for the victualling house.
Mr. Collins
They would probably direct you to the butcher's.
Victuals are food and suchlike necessities and, unfortunately, " place of public refreshment " has come to be exclusively associated with public-houses. I may say that we have considered this matter and that the phraseology has been examined. The words " victualling house " have been in use for a very long period. They may be archaic but I think they are suitable if you regard it from the point of view of a place for obtaining food and refreshment.
Mr. Collins
Does it really matter whether these words are archaic so long as they are effective ?
I think we may go on. We need not waste time on this.
It is one of these phrases which are completely out of date and, in my view, there is no necessity to keep it in the Bill. However, as I have made a point about it I think that is sufficient. However, I should think that the draftsmen could have readily found an alternative. When this phrase was in common usage everybody knew what it was. That might have been two hundred or three hundred years ago when the words were common, but it is not common now to my knowledge.
I do not think there would be any difficulty when officers were looking for suitable places of billeting.
Mr. Brennan
The underlying idea, I take it, is to differentiate between a place of refreshment and a victualling house. Would the Minister agree to look into the matter ?
I do not think the Deputy wants me to look into it.
I have made the point in regard to it. I do not know whether the Minister would like it to be included here that a public-house should not be used as a victualling house.
We want to have the option. It is quite possible that public-houses would be used.
My idea is that, generally speaking, billeting in peacetime would not be done in licensed premises. I was interested to read that 100 years ago, perhaps nearly 90 years ago, there was reported in the Town of Delvin a case of a soldier who was billeted in a public-house on a march from Athlone. He created a nuisance and he was dealt with by the local court. I was reading that report in the Westmeath Independent last week-end and I was very interested in it.
Mr. Brennan
Is it wrong to assume that they may not be billeted in a public-house ?
We want to make it clear that what we envisage is a place where food may be obtained.
I take it that amendment No. 37 is withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
As regards amendment No. 38, the expression " victualling house " means premises described in Part 3 of the Tourist Act, 1939, as premises licensed under the Licensing Acts for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises. In other words, the two places that are termed billeting houses are hotels and public-houses. Now, I want to add a new paragraph, because I agree with what the Minister, and, I think, Mr. Brennan, has said about licensed premises. I suggest that it should include restaurants, public milk-bars, communal halls, community halls, cafés and refreshment rooms, and public dance halls, and these should be places where soldiers might be billeted. I think the Minister might accept that amendment.
You might not get the amenities which the Defence Forces would require in, say, a public dance hall. You might not get board and lodging.
You will get lodgings, which is important.
It is merely a provision the Minister was probably advised on that. It is merely an enabling provision.
We do not want to put in something that we cannot utilise.
The trouble about the Tourist Act is that there were a lot of places that were described as hotels at one time, but registration was taken away from them. These premises would still be suitable for the Minister's purposes. Communal halls, dance halls and places like that would be very valuable places to have control of if the Minister were to accept that amendment.
Not in its entirety.
If he accepts the principle he can consider it.
We can, of course, put in another sub-section. You might get accommodation in such places as restaurants and milk-bars, and I do not want to be regarded as being opposed to the inclusion of such premises as might prove suitable.
In milk-bars you will get food.
The Minister is accepting ?
Yes, in principle.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 39 to 44 have been ruled out of order. Captain Cowan has already got a note to that effect. The grounds were that the cumulative effect was to delete the section. The Minister may make such regulations as he thinks fit.
I do not mind about that. It can come up again in a different form.
If the Deputy wishes to oppose the section, we will hear him now, because it will achieve the same purpose.
The purpose was to delete sub-section (2). The idea in putting down amendments in the way I have them put down was to take each sub-section by itself. Any one of the sub-sections I mentioned could be deleted on my amendments. But the purpose behind these amendments was to ensure that where the Minister is going to make regulations, requiring the occupiers or owners of victualling houses to provide lodgings and food for members of the Defence Forces, that that provision should be operated only when positive sanction is given for it in the Act. We should, in this Bill, specifically lay down that occupants or owners of these houses are bound to provide lodging and food when so required by an officer or by the Minister in certain circumstances. This is referring to billeting in peace-time, and on the last occasion the Chairman said very clearly that where billeting was to take place in peace-time he realised that that should be provided for in the Act rather than by regulations to be made by the Minister. We had this discussion when we were dealing with billeting in time of emergency and war. The section would be much better from the public point of view if the Minister would simply say that owners or occupants of these specified premises would be bound to provide lodging, attendance and food, if so required in certain circumstances, and the Minister might then make regulations dealing with the exercise of the powers by the officers.
When this Bill is passed there will be no obligation on any person to provide lodging, food and attendance for members of the Defence Forces unless the Minister makes a regulation. I feel that that is a most unsatisfactory way. The law does not come into operation until the regulations are made. I would much prefer that we should simply say in the Bill that the owners and occupants of these premises are bound to provide lodging, attendance and food in certain eventualities and that powers to acquire them would be dealt with by regulations. On Section 37 I went into greater detail in this matter on making regulations, or authorising the making of regulations, which have the force of law affecting the community. I do not think it is desirable and for the same reason I oppose this section.
This is another section which has received considerable attention. Those dealing with it are satisfied that it is the best and most effective way of dealing with the matter. The regulations would really be a safeguard. It will be necessary to make regulations only if and when they are required. The regulations may be made to meet cases as they arise.
Mr. Collins
Would it be less effective if you dealt with it in the manner suggested by Deputy Cowan ?
We would, I think, be leaving the position more rigid.
Mr. Collins
His objection to the section appears to me that there is a duplication of effort under the section. What Deputy Cowan is anxious to obtain is that the section, in a statutory way, would crystallise what has to be provided, and then it would be only a question of regulations in regard to the control of circumstances as they arise. It seems that he wants the Minister to put in the Bill everything that can be covered and to leave to regulations everything outside that.
He wants to delete the sub-section.
Mr. Collins
I am talking about the section but I think he has made a case. Would it make your case, Mr. Minister, less effective if you did what Captain Cowan has suggested ?
It is the impression of those concerned with the section that it would. We have to think in terms of the future and to realise that people other than ourselves will be dealing with this measure. A long view has to be taken in the matter and I would suggest that no change should be made
Mr. Collins
If an emergency arose in which certain premises had to be taken over for billeting the making of regulations might not be the easiest way of giving a general direction at that stage.
It is normal procedure. If you put in something fixed, you are confined to that, whereas the making of regulations gives flexibility.
Mr. Collins
I am only interested to the extent as to why your Department is wedded to this section. That is why I am questioning this.
The idea I have in mind is that sub-sections (a), (b) and (c) should be positive sections whereby, under this Act, the occupiers or owners of victualling houses and of livery stables and of garages would be required to provide lodgings, attendance and food, stabling and forage for horses and garage space for mechanically propelled vehicles. It was also my idea that the section should oblige them to do that and that the Minister would be authorised under the section to make regulations as to the conferring of power upon such persons who would require these services. I do think that, as a general principle, where we make a law affecting the civil population and the community, and where we provide for a penalty not exceeding £25 for breach of that law, that we should specifically make it a law rather than a law depending on regulations to be made by the Minister.
I feel that the making of regulations is, in a sense, a safeguard for the public. We spent a considerable time on the early stages of this Bill discussing the rights of the people. We had a good deal of talk directed to the point that the rights of the individual should be safeguarded. I think that regulations in this case would be a certain safeguard to the public, inasmuch as officers would be bound by the regulations. They could not go into an area and take over premises without regard to the actual conditions then existing. I think it desirable that the provisions of the Bill should be allowed to stand. There are a number of things which might best be provided for by regulation. For instance the Minister might think it undesirable to allow certain premises to be occupied. He might take that view from his own knowledge of the particular circumstances or from information given to him. If there were not specific regulations, premises of a type which the Minister would not be prepared to approve of might be occupied.
Mr. Brennan
Would it not be possible for the officer operating the regulations to use his discretion ?
I am sure he would.
Mr. Brennan
It is possible a person might have a fine premises, but, from the financial point of view, he might not be able to meet the food requirements of the Defence Forces billeted on him. Would the officer operating the regulations have discretionary power to relieve him of that obligation ?
There is no question of an officer not using his discretion. Any member of this Committee would use his discretion and we would expect an officer of the Defence Forces to do so. At the same time, it is desirable that the officer requisitioning billets should be able to occupy any premises which the regulations say he is entitled to occupy.
I think the section as it stands would be safer than if it were changed in the manner which Deputy Cowan suggests. In the case of regulations, you will have it set out what exactly the Army can do. You are giving the Minister power to make the regulations just as he has under the section as it stands. I must say again that it would be safer for the public if the section were allowed to stand. I think it is safer as it is than as Deputy Cowan suggests.
There appears to be a misunderstanding concerning the nature of the regulations that would be made. Under sub-section (7) it is provided that every regulation to be made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as it is made. That envisages the ordinary type of statutory regulation that will be made when this Bill comes into operation. With the concurrence of the Minister for Finance such regulations will be introduced into the House. Such a regulation will be debated in the ordinary course and, similarly, it would be debated before the Seanad. That regulation will have to say specifically that the following types of people will have to provide lodging, attendance and food, stabling and garage space. It must clearly say so before it is effective as a regulation. When that regulation is made an officer is authorised by the regulation and armed with certain documents. In certain circumstances when billeting becomes necessary, and I do not visualise many circumstances in which such billeting will become necessary, he will be armed with those and he will act in accordance with them. My point is that where we are going to compel a member of the public to do anything we should set it out clearly in the Act and leave the ancillary matters to be dealt with by regulation. It might be interpreted that what the Minister has said—I should rather say it may be misinterpreted — that if a force was marching from Dublin to Galway the Minister will make regulations covering the billeting on that journey. This section provides that he may make statutory regulations which will come before both Houses of the Oireachtas and which cannot be amended without the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas. Any amendment to the regulations will have to come before the Oireachtas.
Are they not in effect beforehand ?
When we come to that we will discuss it. I think there is an amendment which is concerned with the point whether they will come into effect before or after.
We have listened to the arguments for and against by Deputy Cowan and by the Minister and I may say that I have no objection to that type of section in the Bill. I believe that that type of legislation is necessary to deal with certain things that are required to be done from time to time. If we agree to change the section it would mean that the Defence Forces would be tied to what is in the Act and you would require a new section under the Act to permit a change. In my opinion the Minister has power to make regulations on billeting and he can change the regulations at any time and, I should say, in a very short space of time, to meet varying circumstances. All he has to do is to lay such a regulation before both Houses of the Oireachtas. I do not think that there is a great deal in the arguments advanced by Deputy Cowan. It is laid down in the section what the Minister proposes to do under the regulations. He may require the occupier of a certain house to provide lodgings and attendance. That is contained in the Bill and if anybody desires to know what is required and what type of activity can be legally performed by a military officer, these things can all be set out in regulations.
I think we have discussed this matter very fully but I should like to say, in reference to what Deputy Hilliard has said, a few things more on the sub-section. Under the sub-section certain types of people will be obliged to provide these facilities if so required. That is something that needs no amendment. As to how such a person would be called upon, and the circumstances upon which he would be called upon, these could be dealt with by ordinary regulations by the Minister. What I am concerned with is simply the matter of principle: Are we to make laws by means of Acts or are we to give the Minister power to make laws. That is all I have to say. I think it has been very fully discussed and I would ask you to take the opinion of the Committee on it.
Question put—" That Section 38 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 6 ; Níl, 2.
Tá:
- Minister for Defence.
- Colley, Harry.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Gallagher, Colm.
- Carter, Frank.
- Hilliard, Michael.
Níl:
- Collins, Seán.
- Cowan, Peadar.
Question declared carried.