Deputy Keyes' amendment to this section is one of a number of amendments, and I think the decision on this amendment should govern the other amendments in his name with regard to the same matter, namely, amendments Nos. 21, 108 and 168.
SECTION 17.
I move amendment No. 10 :—
After sub-section (4) to insert the following additional sub-section :—
" (5) An individual in the employment of the person liable under this section to produce any record, account or other document, shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if his refusal or failure to produce such record, account or other document was made on the instruction, either expressed or implied, of the employer or of any person acting for the employer who was entitled to issue such instruction."
The amendment makes the matter pretty clear. I want to see that an individual who may happen to be the medium for the refusal of a particular document on the instruction of the owner of a business could not be made responsible for that. The obvious intention is that the party responsible should be the licensee. I think, however, that sub-section (c) is rather vague :
(c) a refusal or failure to produce a record required by this section to be kept in respect of any premises, or of any other document reasonably demanded by an inspector under this section for the purpose of verifying any entry in or any omission from such record, if made or committed by an individual in the employment of the person liable under this section to produce such record or account shall be deemed to have been made or committed by such person.
I do not think it is the intention of the Minister to get after the employee, and I am suggesting that, " An individual in the employment of the person liable under this section to produce any record, account, or other documents shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if his refusal or failure to produce such record, account, or other document was made on the instruction, either expressed or implied, of the employer or of any person acting for the employer who was entitled to issue such instruction."
Minister for Agriculture
I do not think there will be any doubt about the person liable there, because the last four lines of sub-section (c) state : " if made or committed by an individual in the employment of the person liable under this section to produce such record or account shall be deemed to have been made or committed by such person." Of course, the person is the licensee, not the employer.
I suggest that in the last portion it is possible to relate such a person to the word " individual " in the fourth last line of the section, and for the purpose of clarity I am bringing in my amendment. Earlier on in the same section it says that any individual in the employment of such person may be asked for the record or document. That is rather wide. Sub-section (b) mentions any individual but does not specify what his responsibility may be. It might be a messenger-boy who might whistle disrespectfully in at the inspector and incur a liability for the employer.
The inspector must demand the document from the manager or the owner. If I were an employee and an inspector came to me to inspect a document, I would not allow him to inspect it.
That is not set out in the section.
Minister for Agriculture
The man in charge might keep out of the way. That is the difficulty. All these sections are worded rather severely, but I think that in practice there was never any complaint. We consulted the draftsman about Deputy Keyes' amendment and he says there is absolutely no doubt about the section as it stands.
He thinks it is clear ?
Minister for Agriculture
Yes.
Deputy O'Reilly
Would it not be an offence for the employer to issue such an instruction ?
Minister for Agriculture
I do not know if it is under this Act.
It would make the situation unpleasant between the employee and the employer if they were to fight out who was responsible. I want to make it clear that it is the employer who is responsible.
Minister for Agriculture
I do not think Deputy Keyes need have any doubt about it.
If the draftsman is satisfied, I shall not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section put and agreed to.
Sections 18 and 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.
I move amendment No. 11 :—
Before Section 20 to insert a new section as follows :—
(1) Immediately upon the expiration of the preliminary period every person whose name appeared upon the register of minor curers during the preliminary period and who is not eligible for registration on the register of small curers upon the expiration of the preliminary period shall be entitled to compensation to be calculated in accordance with the formula set out in the following sub-section and to be payable from the funds of the Bacon Marketing Board.
(2) The Minister at the expiration of the preliminary period shall appoint an arbitrator before whom all the claims under the preceding sub-section shall be determined and the appropriate compensation assessed.
This raises the question of the justice of wiping people out of business by legislation. I submit to the Minister that, if it is essential for the success of this Bill that certain persons should be put out of business at the end of two years, it should devolve on those who benefit by their exclusion from the industry in question to compensate them, not excessively but reasonably, in proportion to their losses. I think it right that Deputies should realise that unless we incorporate that principle in this Bill it will be the first time, so far as I am aware, that the Oireachtas by statute has prohibited any person from continuing to function in a particular branch of trade without compensating him for any direct loss which accrues to him as a result of legislation.
Minister for Agriculture
I do not think that is true. This Bill is on a par with certain other measures that have been passed through the Oireachtas under which people have been put out of business. In the case of the Fresh Meat Act, the Eggs Act and other Acts people were put out of business because, for instance, their premises were not up to a certain standard. Under the Fresh Meat and Eggs Acts traders were put out of business and there was no provision for the payment of compensation for them. I think this is the first Bill under which we are going a long way to meet traders : to give them a chance to qualify to carry on their business. In the case of those small curers we are trying to meet them in every way possible. We are giving them two years to come up to the standard that we want. If they were not able to fulfil the conditions laid down in the two years they would scarcely deserve compenastion.
Surely the Minister is mistaken in establishing an exact analogy between the elimination of egg exporters under the Eggs Act and minor curers under this Bill. Under the Eggs Act nobody, in fact, was put out of business. Anybody could have continued to ship eggs provided he was prepared to comply with the Department's requirements in regard to methods of packing, etc. There was no question of excluding a man who did not ship a sufficient quantity of eggs. As regard the Fresh Meat Act, I am not so well informed as to its provisions, but I submit there is no precedent in the legislation passed by the Oireachtas for depriving a person of his means of livelihood without compensation. I submit to Deputies that if we set that precedent now we are virtually confiscating valuable assets, and by that I mean the goodwill which a man has built up, without compensation. I submit that not only is that undesirable but that it is ultra vires of Oireachtas Eireann. We have no right to take from a man his property without compensating him for it. I do not wish to preach any anarchical doctrine, but I think the citizen from whom an attempt is made to take valuable property, without adequate compensation, is entitled to resist the law, and I invite the Minister to comment on that.
With all respect to Deputy Dillon there is a precedent for what is proposed in this Bill, and it was established by the Department of Agriculture. I refer to the Act passed some years ago relating to veterinary surgeons. Men who had not qualified as vets, but who were carrying a lucrative practice as skilled men, were prohibited from doing that under that Act. They were not only deprived of their means of livelihood, but, if they attempted to carry on, they made themselves liable to severe penalties.
Deputy Dillon is not able to tell us under what legislation compensation is to be paid to certain people.
There is the case of the Liquor Act.
Where is the analogy there ?
Under the Act dealing with the liquor trade any man whom the State decided should withdraw from business for the public weal was compensated by those who benefited from his withdrawal. The compensation was assessed by an arbitrator, and the amount of it was levied on the remaining licensed holders.
Deputy Maguire
Was it satisfactory ?
Eminently satisfactory.
I think that the Transport Act furnishes a very strong argument in support of the case made by Deputy Dillon. That legislation was introduced and passed for the purpose of putting the transport industry, which had got into a chaotic condition, on a proper footing. The intention of this Bill is to stabilise the bacon industry. There are many people making a living out of it. If it is found that they are not able to comply with the standards laid down and they are obliged under this legislation to get out, surely they are entitled to compensation. Those who remain will benefit by their elimination. They will, in fact, have a monopoly of the business. Therefore, I think the principle that was put into operation in the transport legislation should also apply in the case of this Bill.
Minister for Agriculture
If there is any analogy with the case we are dealing with it is to be found in the Dairy Produce Act. Under that Act creameries that were not up to a certain standard were put out of both the home and the export business, and put out of it suddenly. They did not get two years, as the curers are getting under this Bill, to come up to the required standard.
I do not think that you should carry Deputy Dillon's analogy to its conclusion.
It was Deputy Haslett who gave it to me.
Excuse me. The legislature did not compensate those who were not carrying on their business properly and who went out of business. It was only the redundant ones who were compensated. Therefore, I suppose that in this case the Minister would argue that the people concerned are not in a position to carry on their business properly.
Deputy Maguire
I am afraid that the acceptance of the amendment would have this effect : that between now and the end of the two year period allowed under the Bill, you would find people getting tired of the business and inclined to get out of it for the purpose of receiving compensation. If they knew that they were to get compensation when they went out of business they would make no effort to carry on their business or to push it. Therefore, I think the effect of the amendment would be to put a premium on laziness. Deputies are aware that the law relating to insanitary houses is of a very drastic character. The owners of such property get an opportunity of improving it, but if they fail to do so the property is taken over by the local authority at a nominal price. I do not think it would be wise to accept this amendment because, as I have said, the effect of it would be to put a premium on lazy and indifferent people.
Surely a very fundamental principle is raised here, and that is the question whether the Oireachtas has the right to take from citizens of the State their private property without compensation—the right to confiscate it. A public health authority can confiscate a man's house if it becomes insanitary. They can, because that man is demonstrating to the world that he is using his property in such a way that it constitutes a menace to the community. In that case the duty of the State to the community over-rides the duty of the State to the individual. But, here you have a man who asks for nothing but the right to carry on his business in a perfectly legitimate way without interfering with anyone. The State comes in and says that, for the public weal, it proposes to organise the bacon industry, to sequestrate it into the hands of a few individuals who must, of necessity, derive additional profits from the fact that they are being given a monopoly. " Very well," says the small man, " if you want to confer a monopoly for high State reasons on a certain group of men and you want to put me out of business in order to implement that monopoly, all I ask is that, out of the increased profits that the monopolists will get, they should give me something to keep me going after you have put me out of business." Take the case of a man of 50 or 55 years of age who has been in this trade all his life. He may be getting a modest income out of his little business. There are such people in the country because a number of them have written to me. What is that man going to do at the end of two years ? He is a middle-aged man with, say, a small grown-up family. He has had no other training or business qualification, and has arrived at that time of life when nobody will employ him. He has got into settled habits. What is that man going to do ? Is he going to be left to starve, because that is all that is left open to him if the Bill is passed in its present form ? The Minister has said that he does not expect there will be more than 30 persons registered on this register of minor curers. Let us suppose that five of them qualify for inclusion in the register of small curers. All that I am asking is that the big curers who are left on the register, and who are making plenty of money, should provide a modest sum to compensate the 25 men who have been wiped out of business. Surely there is nothing extravagant in that.
What about the case that was cited by Deputy Maguire about slum property ?
The principle of compensation is admitted there.
Only to the extent of the ground value of the property. The legislation dealing with house property was introduced and passed because the owner of it was certified to be doing an injury to the public health. The Deputy will admit, I am sure, that this measure would not have been introduced if it were not felt that people such as we are discussing, if allowed to carry on, would do serious injury to the bacon industry. That is the reason for this legislation.
Might I quote one case which probably illustrates the hardships that this Bill will inflict on certain classes of people engaged in the business of bacon curing at the present ? I have in mind the case of a man who has been engaged in it for the last 20 or 25 years. During that period he succeeded in building up a certain select trade. He is an expert curer. There is a certain quality in his cure which has succeeded in getting for him a select clientele. He has succeeded in extending his business year by year, and yet he is only carrying on in a small way. If this man is to qualify under the Bill and to become a registered minor curer it will be quite impossible for him to do it in the space of two years. First of all, in order to qualify, he would have to extend his premises. That will involve the expenditure of a good deal of money, and, secondly, he would have to get extra capital. It would be quite impossible for him to do all that in the space of two years. That man's case is typical of several others throughout the country. As I have said, he has been in business for 20 or 25 years. He has been engaged in a special line. If he is driven out of business through the operation of this Bill what is he to turn to ? Is not that a glaring case of hardship that deserves special consideration ? I agree with Deputy Dillon that men of his type should be paid compensation.
Deputy Maguire
Why should not such men find additional capital to enable them to bring their business to the standard required ?
They could not do it in two years.
Deputy Maguire
If they cannot find the additional capital to do that, then they will have sufficient time to sell their business in the open market. It is quite unfair for Deputy Dillon to suggest that this Bill proposes in any way to sequestrate property. If people mean to remain in the business they are getting ample time to bring their premises up to the required standard, and if they are not prepared to do that they will have an opportunity of selling in the open market.
5 o’clock.
How could you take away a man's living without taking his property ? That is one objection I have to the amendment. While I would be in favour of giving some small compensation, I do not like putting it on the curers that will remain in business, because that would be strengthening their position and giving them a monopoly. We should not have a monopoly. I would prefer if the Oireachtas voted some small compensation.
Minister for Agriculture
I do not think the minor curers depend on that particular business for a living of the type mentioned by Deputy Roddy. There are many who have a local select trade that is increasing year by year.
These are the type of men that will easily qualify after two years and will not have any trouble in doing so. The men who will not qualify are probably men with sidelines, grocers, who will not mind dropping out, or who would be glad to get compensation, if they could.
It is an open question whether we are increasing or diminishing the value of the minor curers concerned. It will not be so easy for a beginner to come along and to qualify as a small curer as provided for in the Bill, as for a minor curer to work up the little trade he has and to go a little further. If I were going into the business, and if I thought there was anything in it, I would prefer to pay a good price for a minor curer's business than to start from scratch. Apart from that, I have two objections to the amendment. I consider this is not the time, even if the Minister had it in mind, to give compensation. We should not talk about it now, but two years hence, because it will be an opening for all kinds of abuse if you offer compensation now. A man has two years to increase his business. If that is not considered sufficient, the best way to mend this section is to extend the time to qualify. We should encourage these people to do more business, rather than to encourage them to get out of business. Compensation will encourage people to get out of business. It will give a fair period for them to get more business and will encourage them to remain in and to improve that business. If a charge were being put on I would not put it on the Marketing Board. I would make it a private charge on the bacon curers. If you think it equitable to make a charge I would make those who are getting all the business pay out of the profits.
I submit that that point does not arise. If my amendment is accepted the question will arise as to how compensation will be assessed. According to the Minister's estimate, we are going to have 25 men, mostly married men, men of middle age to whom the prospects of elimination from trade are going to be a nightmare and a horror. They have no possible means of support. Surely, if you like, in the name of Christian charity, you are not going to deprive these men of a business that they have built up and drive them into destitution. When you look at the period it is a mere bagatelle to the bacon curers. I am a bacon curer, but that does not prevent me moving the amendment. Taking into consideration the larger firms, I know that the profits they will make out of this legislation are going to be substantial, and when they are getting the benefits that are going to be conferred upon them by this Bill, they should be ready to facilitate the elimination of these persons whose continued existence makes the administration of the Bill impossible. I put it to you that it is absolutely indefensible in the case of these 25 persons to have the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads at the end of two years, leaving their wives and families without any means of support. Unless they have substantial savings they must move into the workhouse. There is nothing else for it.
In the next one or two years new men might come along and apply for licences to go into the business. The bacon curers, having compensated the others, could then claim the right to a monopoly, and that the Minister should not let in other men.
The Bill provides for that. The point of view expressed by Deputy Dillon is similar to that of the case of the tramways and the railways buying up the smaller buses. Is not the position of the minor curers this : that they have two years to qualify to a certain standard ? If they do not qualify in two years there would be a good deal of reason for those who get their licences to compensate them for getting out. Before we come to that, I should like to know if it is considered that two years is a reasonable time for people who want to get out, I understood on a previous occasion that the Minister's reason for getting them out was the cost of inspecting small places. But if there are only 25 or 30 of these places the cost would not be so much. These small people flourish only in areas that are not very well supplied or that are not in the proximity of big curing establishments. The big curing establishments are centred in Munster, with the exception of Dublin.
And County Mayo.
I am not saying anything about Castlebar.
Or Claremorris.
If you could encourage small people to keep in business for a while, as time goes on they might amalgamate two or three small concerns and continue in business.
I do not think that is possible under the Bill.
Minister for Agriculture
It is, in a way. It is, provided that they can gather the quotas of each other with the approval of the Boards.
They would have to manufacture all the pigs on one premises.
Minister for Agriculture
Yes.
Instead of making the probationary period two years, why not make it three years.
You may make as many provisions as you like. This Bill is going to establish the principle that the Oireachtas is entitled to wipe men out of business without compensation and the basis of that procedure, I submit, is working to the logical conclusion that a man who by his own labour created a tangible asset and goodwill—and goodwill is a valuable property—is to be put out of business. To go no further than that, we are establishing the principle that we are entitled to confiscate from that man something which he created, a value which is his property and to give him nothing. To my mind, that is not only a rotten principle but is ultra vires. A man in that position would be entitled to resist the law because there is no authority in Oireachtas Eireann to confiscate without compensation the property of any person in the State.
When you are up against the problem of confiscation, could the matter be reviewed ? I do not like to offer a bribe to people to go easy for two years. We might meet the position in some other way—by camouflage. We can take it that there will be as honest men sitting over the matter and reviewing it as we are. If you could conceal what is meant in words—that the position will be reviewed at the end of the probationary period, I am with you.
I shall withdraw the amendment if the Minister says he will take into consideration at the end of two years the situation then created with a view to seeing that substantial justice is done to any person eliminated by the operation of the Act.
If this Committee considers that if there was a prospect of injustice some compensation should be given, it should not be difficult to get the necessary safeguards and to make it impossible for anyone to go slow, because of the generosity or the decency of the Committee. There was the example in the Act that I spoke about, where men were compensated on the volume of trade done previous to the introduction of that legislation. It is not from this day the type and volume of business done should be reckoned.
I would rather compensate for the business from this on because that would show that a man made an effort.
If there is any suspicion of playing fast and loose you have safeguards.
Deputy Maguire
I think you are going to put the cost of compensation on the pig producers. It was suggested that people going out of business should be compensated. Does it not look arbitrary to say to people in business : " Because you were lucky, we are going to insist on your compensating other persons." That would be as logical as saying that a farmer who finds himself on the rocks should sell his farm. It is open to these people to sell their interests if they feel they cannot reach the standard.
Subject to the knowledge that their whole business is to be wiped out at the end of two years.
Deputy Maguire
They are not going to be wiped out.
Minister for Agriculture
They can qualify.
What factors would operate in the case of the 25 persons you mention to put them out of business ?
Minister for Agriculture
I do not say the 25 would go out. I do not see why all should not qualify.
Is it failure to handle a certain number of pigs ?
Minister for Agriculture
They must produce more than 2,000 cwts. of bacon and be in business for 45 weeks each year.
And must have bacon up to your requirements.
That means about 32 pigs per week for the whole period.
Forty-four.
Minister for Agriculture
If they kill so many we must licence, provided the premises are all right.
Deputy O'Reilly
If this amendment were accepted, I think you would be entitled to reconsider the registration.
If it is a case of compensation, you will have to decide on the compensation now and let them get out, or otherwise let them give a guarantee that they will reach a certain standard in a certain time. I think the suggestion made by Deputy Dillon is about the best thing.
Deputy Maguire
I suggest that any proposal of that sort is placing on the producer a liability that ordinarily he should not have to carry.
Minister for Agriculture
There is no doubt about that.
I would support Deputy Dillon's suggestion, but not in relation to the Marketing Board.
I have not specified where the funds are to come from ; that will be another day's work.
Is it not set out here that the funds shall come from the Bacon Marketing Board ?
I am quite prepared to waive that.
Deputy Maguire
Where, then, are the funds to come from ?
Out of someone's private pocket—where else would the money come from ?
From the curers.
Deputy Maguire
What right have we to interfere with the curers to that extent ?
Did you not do it with the publicans ?
Deputy Maguire
How are you going to fix the compensation on the number of curers existing at the time when, a week after compensation is fixed, five new people may come into the market ? How are you going to fix their liability ? My point is that this is going to be a lien on the pig producer and I am personally opposed to that. If these people are not prepared to run their business, let them get out.
Do not throw any additional liabilities over on the pig producers and the bacon curers ; it would not be fair to put it on them.
I ask Deputies to accept the principle that those people should get fair compensation ; otherwise you are confiscating men's property and that is a thing the Oireachtas, so far as I am aware, has never done before.
You have not made any analogy to show us that measures cited by the Minister, measures formerly passed by the Dáil, did not interfere substantially with private property and business of one kind or another.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Surely, that is an answer to the Deputy.
Would it not be sufficient to say that these cases would be reviewed at the end of two years ?
Minister for Agriculture
I do not think there should be reference to any such thing in the Bill.
There should not be reference, at any rate, to compensation. Could you say anything in the Bill about reviewing this position at the end of two years ?
Minister for Agriculture
I do not think so.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided : Tá, 4 ; Níl, 8.
Tá
- Deputy Dillon.
- Deputy O’Donovan.
- Deputy Keyes.
- Deputy Roddy.
Níl.
- Minister for Agriculture.
- Deputy Maguire.
- Deputy Beegan.
- Deputy Moore.
- Deputy Belton.
- Deputy O’Reilly.
- Deputy Haslett.
- Deputy Smith.
Amendment declared lost.
I beg to move amendment No. 12 :—
Before Section 20 to insert a new section as follows :—
At the expiration of the preliminary period the employee of every person who during the preliminary period was registered on the register of minor curers and who at the conclusion of such period was ineligible for registration on the register of small curers and who by the operation of this Act loses his employment shall in the event of his failing to secure employment within a reasonable time on premises registered under this Act be entitled to such compensation as the arbitrator referred to in the preceding section shall determine.
The same considerations apply, but with less force.
Is there to be no consideration for employees who lose their work ? I think that is a new principle, quite a new principle in Dail legislation, to rob employees of their work by legislative action and let them go without any compensation. I do not think any example can be shown where anything else of that sort has been done by the Dáil up to now.
This amendment provides that if any of these men get employment in another factory they will be immediately excluded from compensation. We are going to lay down in this Act that a man whom we put out of work, a man willing and anxious to take work in another bacon factory if he can get it, but who cannot get that work, must go on the dole.
But you must remember that the man is not even in continuous employment. As small curers they cannot have whole-time employees.
They must work for 45 weeks and must cure more than 44 pigs per week, and must have their premises in a condition which will comply with the Minister's requirements; otherwise their employees go out of work, and after they have sought alternative employment and failed to get it our answer to them is : " Go on the dole."
But there is no such thing here as permanent employment.
And the question of loss of employment will not arise for at least two years ?
Minister for Agriculture
No.
I have no doubt that these men who will be going out of employment in two years will find out the Minister and put their case before him, and I am sure they will be treated with sympathy.
We are merely trying to prevent any injustice being done.
I suggest it would be merely a bribe for a laissez faire policy and for inefficiency if we were to make any such provision now.
It is the view of the Minister that a certain number will go out, and some provision should be made in their interest.
If in two years they do not reach a certain standard of efficiency, they should go out of business. Are you going to say to people : " We will let you go on if you reach a certain standard in two years, and if you do not we will compensate you ?" No, you could not do that.
This amendment proposes that if a man gets employment in another place he will not be qualified for compensation.
If he gets compensation and then gets employed, will he give the money back to you ?
That could be provided for. The attitude adopted by this Committee towards the employees is : " If you fail to get employment, go on the dole."
Amendment withdrawn.
Section 20 put.
The Committee divided : Tá, 8 ; Níl, 4.
Tá
- Minister for Agriculture.
- Deputy O’Reilly.
- Deputy Beegan.
- Deputy Maguire.
- Deputy Belton.
- Deputy Moore.
- Deputy Haslett.
- Deputy Smith.
Níl.
- Deputy Dillon.
- Deputy O’Donovan.
- Deputy Keyes.
- Deputy Roddy.
Section declared carried.