Vol. 36 No. 10
I move: "In page 2, Section 4 (1), to delete in lines 44 and 45 the words "in such place," and to delete in line 46 the words "in such place."
If these words were allowed in, the inspector might possibly take it into his head that he had the right to detain eggs on a ship and issue a ukase holding up the ship from sailing. It is most unlikely, but, at the same time, we thought it well to provide against it.
That argument would hardly apply to (A).
Possibly it would. It also partly meets Deputy Haslett's point.
I move:—
In page 3, Section 4 (1), paragraph (c), to delete all words from the word "seize" in line 4 to the word "section" in line 7 and substitute the following words "give a direction in writing to the carrier prohibiting the export of all packages so detained."
I move:—
In page 3, before Section 4 (2), to insert three new sub-sections as follow:—
(2) Whenever an inspector gives a direction under this section to the carrier prohibiting the export of any package of eggs, it shall be the duty of such inspector, where such carrier is not the owner of such package, to notify the consigner of such package of the giving of such direction.
(3) Every person who exports or attempts to export any package of eggs in respect of which a direction prohibiting the export of such package has been given by an inspector under this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
(4) Wherever a direction prohibiting the export of a package of eggs has been given to the carrier under this section and such package is, at the time such direction is given, actually loaded on a ship at a port in Saorstát Eireann, the carriage of such package on such ship shall not for the purpose of this section be deemed an exportation of such package if such carrier proves that such package was subsequently returned to and landed at the same port in Saorstát Eireann by him at the first available opportunity, and that between the time such package left and was landed at such port it was in the sole charge of such carrier and was not opened or interfered with in any way.
As I say these sub-sections do not materially alter the section as it stands, but give a certain amount of elasticity and prevent to some extent the danger of eggs being held up in large quantities at the port or on the quay.
I move:—
4. In page 3, before Section 4 (3), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) In the exercise in or upon the premises of any railway or shipping company of the powers conferred on him by this section, an inspector shall conform to such reasonable requirements of such company as are necessary to prevent the working of the traffic on such premises being obstructed or interfered with.
That speaks for itself.
I move:—
In page 4, lines 3 and 4, Section 8, to delete the words "without giving to any person notice of his intention so to do."
It is to meet a point of Deputy Dr. Ryan.
Does the original Act provide that notice shall be given because, as the amendment is, no notice will be given?
It does.
I move:—
In page 4, before Section 9, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Before altering or cancelling (otherwise than in accordance with an application in that behalf made under Section 10 of the Principal Act) the registration of any premises under the Principal Act or this Act, the Minister shall give at least one fortnight's notice in writing of his intention so to alter or cancel such registration to the registered proprietor of such premises or his personal representative (if any) or its liquidator (as the case may be) and shall consider any representations made before the expiration of such notice by such registered proprietor or personal representative or liquidator (as the case may be) and may, if he thinks fit, cause an inquiry to be held in relation to the matter.
(2) A notice of the Minister's intention to cancel or alter registration of premises under the Principal Act or this Act may be served by delivering it to the person to whom it is addressed or by leaving it for him with a person over sixteen years of age on the premises to which it relates or by sending it by post to the person to whom it is addressed at his last known place of abode.
(3) Sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Principal Act is hereby re pealed.
This is consequential. It meets Deputy Dr. Ryan's amendment. I think that meets the case.
I move that the Bill do now pass. Deputy Ryan drew my attention to Section 6, which reads:
Without prejudice to any other reason for refusal which may arise under the Principal Act or this Act, each of the following shall be a good reason for the refusal by the Minister of an application for the registration of premises in the register of exporters or in the register of preservers, that is to say:— (a) that such premises were previously so registered and such registration was cancelled by the Minister under the Principal Act or this Act, or
(b) that the person applying for such registration was previously the registered proprietor of other premises so registered and, while he was such registered owner, the registration of such other premises was cancelled by the Minister under the Principal Act or this Act.
The principal case is a case like this: AB is the owner of premises registered; he contravenes the Act five or six times but has to be let back every time after a certain interval on simply applying to be re-registered. His equipment and premises are, ex hypothesi, all right and conform to the Act in every way, therefore the Department has no option but to admit to re-registration the registered proprietor although his licence has been previously cancelled five or six times. That is the general case we have to meet and it is covered by paragraph (b). Paragraph (a) is necessary for this reason amongst others. It is common for a man to make a bogus transfer, to transfer it to his wife or daughter or a son under age, and the only way we have to meet that case is to get the powers in paragraph (a).
