This is a deliberative assembly. We are quite entitled to try to put before the House the imperfections of the Minister's proposal. It was stated this morning that we had not put down any amendments to this section. That is true. There are a couple of reasons for that. We have, however, many amendments on the Order Paper. We formed the impression at an early stage that the Minister was not prepared to consider in an objective way such amendments as we might suggest to him. We were, perhaps, a little bit too hasty in coming to that decision. In any event, this is not a section which could be readily amended without changing the whole principle upon which it is based. We would have had to find some way of substituting paragraphs (a) and (h). We may possibly have an opportunity of putting before the House our proposals for replacing these objectionable paragraphs by others, but that is a matter which is still in the lap of the gods. We would much rather, and I think it would be preferable from every point of view, if the Minister, having heard what was said here in the debate on the provisions of this section, would indicate that he would be prepared to meet us, particularly in regard to paragraphs (a) and (h).
There are a couple of other points with which I would like to deal before I sit down and await the reply of the Minister. I trust the Minister will have reconsidered the attitude which he expressed here before lunch. I, no less than he, I suppose, was a little bit on edge when it was coming close to 2 o'clock. I would hope that, having had a brief respite, the Minister might be prepared to discuss this across the floor of the House as if we were sitting around a board table and try to find a way out of the impasse which is holding up this Bill.
There are a couple of other paragraphs in this sub-section (2) to which I think some attention should be devoted. Paragraph (e) provides for the keeping of records by licenses and the production of such records for inspection and taking of copies or extracts by authorised officers of the board. I do not know precisely what purpose that paragraph is designed to serve. The Minister must have had something in his mind when he allowed it to creep into the section. It may, perhaps, have been suggested to him that the board might grant licences to untrustworthy persons, persons who would not fulfil the conditions attached to the licence. It may be that he had some other purpose in mind but we did not hear from the Minister what, in fact, was the objective which he sought to secure by paragraph (e). That again is a reflection of the Minister's manner in dealing with the Opposition in regard to this Bill.
It is usual, when so comprehensive a section as this, which is not a mere machinery section, is being recommended to the House by the Minister in charge of the Bill, for the Minister to explain the purpose for which its several provisions have been inserted in the section. We had not the benefit of any such explanation from the Minister this morning. I do not know whether we shall have that explanation from him before the debate on this section concludes, but again, I think, as I thought in relation to paragraphs (a) and (h), that the section is dangerous as a precedent.
Auctioneering is a normal commercial occupation, an ordinary business; yet here we are giving to some controlling body the right to walk in and inspect the books of a person or a firm which is carrying on this business. That is a very dangerous precedent to establish and surely before the House gives its assent to a proposal of that kind the need for it should be fully demonstrated by the Minister who is recommending it to the House. As I said, auctioneering is a plain, ordinary business, just as ordinary and as commonplace as, say, the grocery business, the tailoring business or the haberdashery business. Concede this power to the board and it may not be very long before some person will be appealing to the Greyhound Industry Bill as the Minister has appealed to the Racing Board and Racecourses Act of 1945 to justify certain provisions in this measure. It may not be very long before someone is appealing to what has been done in the Greyhound Industry Bill as a justification for applying the powers which are contained in paragraph (e) to some other occupation or business.
The next paragraph to which I wish to refer is paragraph (m). As Deputy de Valera pointed out, it looks very innocuous on the face of it. It provides for the making of regulations by the board in regard to the recording and publication of information relating to the results of sales. That is a very wide power indeed. As Deputy de Valera pointed out, it would probably be construed by the court to exclude anything which did not come within the general ambit of the provisions of Section 38. Nevertheless, even if it has that restrictive force, even if it could be said to deal only with matters which would be the proper concern of the board, I would pose this question: if a newspaper publishes the information that certain named greyhounds were sold at an auction, might the newspaper be held to have contravened some regulation made by the board under paragraph (m)? That might not be impossible. As Deputy de Valera said, the publication of information relating to sales must be made in conformity with the regulations made by the board. A newspaper might, however, publish a perfectly genuine article containing information relating to sales not in conformity with the regulations made.
Now these are the objections we see to the section as it stands. This section is, in its purpose, quite novel and, I think, unprecedented. It is unprecedented in so far as any Act of this Oireachtas is concerned because this general power, this almost comprehensive power, which is to be conferred on the board to make regulations, is without any safeguard whatsoever for the public. The board is being set up as a completely independent authority with power to limit the right of people to carry on a business, with power to limit the right of people to enter into employment. We have not even the safeguard that the regulations which the board may make will require the consent of the Minister before they become effective.
The Minister has referred to the Racing Board. There are two sections here giving power to make regulations. One of them affects what one might describe as the general body of the public in so far as the public are represented by the bookmakers. The regulations which the board may make in respect of the payment of levies on course bets are subject to the consent of the Minister. There is another regulation which says that the board, after consultation with the governing bodies, may by regulations provide for regulating the manner in which authorised racecourses are to be managed and controlled by the executives thereof. Under sub-section (2), the board may by regulations provide for requiring executives of various racecourses to keep such books, accounts and records as may be prescribed; it may provide for requiring the executives of authorised racecourses to furnish to the board such returns and information as may be prescribed, for the production of books, accounts and records by executives of authorised racecourses and for the inspection and taking of extracts from books, accounts and records of authorised racecourses.
It is quite true that in that section the consent of the Minister is not required. But the circumstances and conditions are very different. These are authorised racecourses, long-established concerns, and the board has power to make these regulations because the board does, in fact, contribute very substantially to the finances of the authorised racecourses. We all know how these racecourses have been improved since the Racing Board was established. We all know that hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent on them and, because the board is providing these moneys, the board is quite properly entitled to supervise the expenditure of those moneys and to ensure that the racecourses are being properly managed and run.
That is a very different thing from trying to limit and restrict the practice of what is recognised as an ordinary commercial occupation into which people may enter so long as they are of good character and can put up a sufficient bond. It is because the provisions of this section restrict, in the way I have described, the right of people to earn their livelihood and to enter into business that I say the least the Minister should do—the least the Minister is in duty bound to do— is to ensure that, before these regulations are made and come into operation, he will consent to them. I know the Minister may say, as he has already said, that he does not want to interfere in the day-to-day conduct of the business of the board. But he is not being asked to do that. He is being asked, presumably on one occasion, and one occasion only, to say that the regulations which the board proposes to make in relation to all these matters are reasonable, so reasonable that he can become a consenting party to them. When he has given his consent in that regard and the regulations are published, and I hope laid before this House, then his activities, so far as Section 38 are concerned, will be at an end.
To recapitulate, we are not want only opposing this section. We are opposing it because we are firmly convinced that paragraphs (a) and (b) are not in the public interest. We admit and agree that there are abuses to be rectified. We think they can be rectified by adopting other machinery, the machinery I have already described to the House.
Finally, we think these regulations should require the consent of the Minister before they become operative. There is nothing unreasonable in that. These are perfectly rational suggestions and I hope that even now, at this stage, the Minister will consider them objectively and let us, if we can, proceed with the Bill.
