Committee on Finance. - Livestock Marts Bill, 1967: Money Resolution (Resumed)

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That it is expedient to authorise such payments out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas as are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present session to provide for the control and regulation by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries of livestock marts and the sale of livestock at such marts and to provide for other matters connected with the matters aforesaid. —(Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries).

Immediately before questions, I was pointing out some of the fallacies of the argument of Deputy Dillon and his supporters in the Opposition Benches, and I was particularly nailing the hypocrisy of the Deputy in condemning this Bill because it proposed to give control by regulation and at the discretion of the Minister in matters pertaining to livestock marts. I quoted the section of the Act which he, as Minister for Agriculture in 1965, put through the House and in which he not only dealt with the matter of the manufacture of fertilisers, feeding stuffs and mineral mixtures but also took control by regulation to prohibit the sale or manufacture by anybody or any persons participating in the manufacture or sale unless he saw fit.

In the 1955 Act the Minister's discretion in regard to the control by him is contained in section 5 and again, just as in section 4 to which I referred earlier, there is provision for regulations by the Minister at his discretion. Section 5 (1) states:

The Minister may by regulations restrict the manufacture for sale of any fertiliser, feeding stuff, compound feeding stuff or mineral mixture to persons holding licences issued by him under the regulations.

In that case we had regulations under which the actual licences were being issued. In the present Bill, licences are being issued and matters pertaining to the carrying on of the business so licensed will be done by regulation, but under the 1955 Act we had licences being issued at the sole discretion of the Minister for Agriculture. Subsection (2) of section 5 of the 1955 Act states:

The Minister shall, before making regulations under this section in relation to a fertiliser, consult with the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

That, from the Opposition's point of view, was a big concession, considering how they are whinging about the Bill now before the House. There was no arrangement for consulting anybody other than the Minister for Agriculture.

Section 5 (3) says:

Where regulations are made under this section—

(a) the Minister may, at his discretion, grant or refuse to grant a licence under the regulations,

(b) a licence may be granted under the regulations either without conditions or with such conditions attached as the Minister considers proper,

(c) the Minister may, at his discretion, by notice sent by post to the holder of a licence under the regulations—

(i) attach any condition to the licence, or

(ii) revoke or vary any condition which is attached to the licence, or

(iii) revoke the licence.

Section 6 (1) of that Act states:

The Minister may by regulations—

(a) prohibit, limit or regulate the use of any specified article in the manufacture for sale of a fertiliser, feeding stuff, compound feeding stuff or mineral mixture,

Hear, hear.

The subsection goes on:

(b) prohibit the sale of a fertiliser, feeding stuff, compound feeding stuff or mineral mixture under a specified description unless it conforms to a specified definition and standard.

Hear, hear.

The subsection goes on:

(c) require manufacturers for sale of or wholesale or retail traders in fertilisers, feeding stuffs, compound feeding stuffs or mineral mixtures to disclose in a specified manner the presence of specified materials in such fertilisers, feeding stuffs, compound feeding stuffs or mineral mixtures.

(d) require manufacturers for sale of, importers of or wholesale or retail traders in fertilisers, feeding stuffs, compound feeding stuffs or mineral mixtures to keep specified records of their transactions in such fertilisers, feeding stuffs, compound feeding stuffs or mineral mixtures.

Hear, hear.

You may say "hear, hear", but why condemn that just now in this Bill which gives less authority and less discretion to the present Minister or any future Minister than that Act implies, which was brought in by the Deputy and the other Deputies opposite?

You cannot have a three-legged bullock but you could have a bag of fertiliser in which there is nothing but dirt. A bullock has four legs and if he has not four legs, he is not a bullock.

All those people were brought in by the Deputy when he was Minister.

Read paragraph (e).

I will read what I want, when I want to read it and how I want to read it, provided it is an accurate reading, not what was done by the Deputies opposite.

I will read (e) in due course.

Section 7 says:

(1) Every person who carries on or is employed in connection with the business of manufacture, import or sale by wholesale or retail of any fertiliser, feeding stuff, compound feeding stuff or mineral mixture shall at all reasonable times—

(a) produce, at the request of an authorised officer, any books, documents or records relating to such business which are in the power, possession or procurement of such person, permit the authorised officer to inspect and take extracts from such books, documents or records and give to him any information which he may reasonably require with regard to any entries therein.

Hear, hear.

There is no question of including persons who are not of managerial status or persons of responsibility but this is objected to by Deputies opposite, despite the fact that amendments circulated in green print and white print say that a person of managerial status must first be asked by anybody on the premises.

(Interruptions.)

Let him read this Act. It is lovely.

Subsection (1) (b) says:

...afford to an authorised officer all responable facilities for the inspection, sampling and taking stock of any fertilisers, feeding stuffs, compound feeding stuffs or mineral mixtures or any materials capable of being used in the manufacture of fertilisers, feeding stuffs, compound feeding stuffs or mineral mixtures on any premises at which such person carries on or is employed in connection with such business,

Hear, hear.

Again we could have the yardman in the premises being asked for this sort of information about which the Deputies on that side of the House have been making such outstanding objections and making such a case here today, because it is included in this Bill, even though they are persons of managerial status or more responsible persons in this case than we have in this other one. Now, section 8.

You hopped from section 7.

Do not mind it. It is irrelevant——

I will read it.

——as far as this particular matter is concerned but I will go back and read it.

Go back and read it.

Subsection (2) of that section says:

A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.

As compared with £1,000 or six months in jail.

For the Deputy's information in the matter of the present Bill, those two things are not comparable. This is what is proposed to be amended.

It has to do with the sale of a three-legged bullock.

This is a different matter altogether. The fact still remains that those sections and subsections were passed into law by those people, supported by Deputy Dillon as Minister and supported by the Party who are still supporting him against this present Bill.

And moral legislation.

Those are terms of that Act which are more onerous, more far-reaching, and one could, if one wanted to look at it in the light of day, find more force in them than there is in this Bill today.

£10,000.

It is not the amount; it is the principle involved. I am rubbing your nose and the nose of other Deputies on that side of the House into the ground with regard to this.

Come on to section 8.

Donegal had enough to say about the Minister.

Do not be codding yourself. Donegal knows its business. Section 8 says:

An authorised officer may at all reasonable times enter and inspect any premises, railway wagon, vehicle, ship, vessel or aircraft

That is going a bit far, if we were going to manufacture them in the air.

Finish the sentence.

It goes on:

in which he has reasonable grounds for believing that any fertiliser, feeding stuff, compound feeding stuff or mineral mixture is manufactured for sale, kept or carried for sale or sold, and may examine and take samples and stock of any fertilisers, feeding stuffs, compound feeding stuffs or mineral mixture, or of any materials capable of being used in the manufacture of fertilisers, feeding stuffs, compound feeding stuffs or mineral mixtures,...

And, no doubt, in aeroplanes as well

...which he finds in the course of his inspection.

Hear, hear. I used him for the protection of the farmers of this country.

Who will protect the farmers now?

Mr. O'Malley

You are like Toscannini.

Can the Minister see any section providing for jailing for six months?

You were promising until you came in here and consorted with them.

I am only trying to assist the Minister.

I know you are. You are a genuine fellow but you are ruined by those people over there. Section 8 (2) says:

A person who obstructs or interferes with an authorised officer when he is exercising a power conferred by this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.

No civic guards, no £1,000, no six months in jail.

There is no yardman now. There is no yard-sweeper included as per the amendment I am now tabling before the House——

It is not before the House yet.

——which Fine Gael are preventing us proceeding with by their filibustering on this Stage of the Bill. Most of those small people could be said to have no responsibility in the matter. That is being used by some of the people opposite to delay this Bill. The bad precedent is being taken out of the present Bill. This was followed by the drafting officer but is not being repeated now. Those people of no great responsibility will not be harassed as they could have been harassed under the Deputy's section here if there were an unreasonable Minister administering this Act, which, thanks to God, for the past ten years there has not been. Leaving that aside, this is only case No. 1——

I thought the Minister was going to read the rest of the sections because they are really beautiful and were most effective.

Case No. 2 is that there has been grave exception taken, and expressed here, to the proposed power in the Bill to grant exemptions at the behest of the Minister from the normal effects of the regulations yet to be drafted and presented to this House. What do we find in the Factories Act of 1955? It is, you will admit, a fairly weighty document. In the very first sections, it is provided:

Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section, if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister, as respects any particular requirement contained in Part III of this Act, that by reason of substantial expenditure involved through the necessity of providing new, or altering existing buildings, or plant, or on account of other special difficulties, it would be right in the case either of factories generally or of any class or description of factory that the requirement should not come into operation on the day appointed under subsection (2) of this section, he may by order—that is, the Minister may— postpone the date of coming into operation of the said requirement, as respects factories generally or that class or description of factory, until such date as he may think fit but not later than two years after the day appointed under subsection (2) of this section, and any such order may direct that such corresponding provisions of any enactment repealed by this Act as may be specified in the order shall apply in lieu of the postponed requirement of this Act.

Surely to heavens, the people on the Labour Benches will at least concede exemptions granted under this Act as to the structure and so forth of factories in which they would naturally be very interested in the workers. Undoubtedly they supported this measure; they voted it into legislation in 1955, together with Fine Gael. They supported the exemptions there, exemptions of a very serious character, exemptions possibly in the interests of the workers whom they would be at pains to protect.

There are other exemptions right through this particular Act. Before dealing with them, I want to deal with the regulations to which I referred under the Fertilisers, Feeding Stuffs and Mineral Mixtures Act. The list of regulations is quite extensive. Section 6 of the Factories Act gives the power to make regulations. It says quite clearly:

The Minister may make regulations in relation to any matter referred to in this Act as prescribed or to be prescribed.

This is a very big Act. Think of the little one we are dealing with now as compared with this. Ours is a two-page document. In that section the Minister was given absolute discretion to make regulations.

In relation to prescribed matters. The Minister must learn to read an Act.

"The Minister may make regulations——

In relation to prescribed matters.

Allow me to read it? I will try to understand it if the Deputy will attempt to do the same. "The Minister may make regulations in relation to any matter referred to in this Act as prescribed or to be prescribed."

Look at the definition section to see what a prescribed matter is.

Do not start fiddling around. You have been fiddling all day and all night and it does not get us anywhere.

Read section 2, in which a prescribed matter is defined.

Before I pass on to the other sections——

Read section 2, in which a prescribed matter is defined.

The Deputy will allow the Minister to make his statement.

On a point of order.

I will not give way if it is not a point of order.

I raise a point of order. On a point of order, if the Minister purports to quote from a statute and employs words to which the statute itself attaches a statutory meaning as distinct from the popular meaning, has he not a duty to inform the House that, in the context in which he is reading the words, the words have a statutory meaning contained in the definition section of the statute referred to?

The Deputy does not mean that it is necessary to interrupt the Minister at that particular point of time; the Deputy can make the necessary corrections afterwards.

I invite him to look at the definition section.

Of course I will look at the definition section, but I do not propose to make the Deputy's case for him. The Deputy made a damn bad job of it in the two tries he already had.

The Minister is attacking a dead man; Bill Norton is not here to defend himself.

Do not come this, you clown. It is not the first dead man the Deputy attacked, and damn well he knows it. Go back on the records and he will see it.

(Interruptions.)

Order. The Minister for Agriculture, without interruption.

I will defend every line of that Act. I am proud of it.

Of course, the Deputy is proud of it and he is daft not to see the parallel. He condemns one and lauds the other.

I do not misquote.

The Deputy would not dream of misquoting! Section 5 of the Factories Act of 1955 reads:

The expenses incurred by the Minister in the administration of this Act shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.

It is apparently all right to have this section there because it was legislation by a Coalition Government; money could be provided for inspectors and inspections and for all administrative costs, but it is all wrong that we should seek in this Money Resolution to have a similar provision for the operation of this Bill, if and when it becomes an Act. Therein lies the contradiction. Therein is the hypocrisy in the case being made against the Bill, glaring hypocrisy which would make any normal person hang his head in shame. Of course, I am not dealing with normal persons so there will not, therefore, be any shame and no hanging of heads. Instead there will be a reiteration of the hypocrisy.

In section 11, subsection (6), there is the following provision:

The Minister may, after consultation with the Minister for Health, make regulations, as respects any class or description of factory or parts thereof or any process, increasing the number of cubic feet which must under this section be allowed for every person employed in a workroom.

Hear, hear.

"Hear, hear" of course. What I am trying to do is to get the Deputy to see that what was good enough then should not be condemned out of hand now and the Opposition should not argue against this Bill, because they were a party to similar provisions in 1955. It was "Hear, hear" then; now it is condemn.

I do not believe we need inspectors to prevent people selling three-legged bullocks.

What the Deputy thinks or what he does not think he has been at liberty to express, God knows, long enough and often enough.

Hear, hear.

Surely it is only fair to the Deputy that we should now seek to learn from the wisdom that impelled the Government of the day to do these things then. What we are doing now is cast in the exact same mould and it cannot be any more objectionable now than it was then and, if objection is taken now, then equally it should have been taken then.

This is what I am trying to get across: this is the foolishness; this is the ridiculousness; this is the madness if those who are speaking believe it. I regard it as hypocrisy and I am hoping to expose it in this House, and I hope it will get across to the public outside. It is the farmers I am concerned with, not what is said by Deputy Dillon, Deputy Clinton, Deputy L'Estrange, Deputy Creed or Deputy Crotty. Deputy Crotty talked about an institution in Kilkenny to which the money, the few thousand pounds which it is proposed to spend under this Bill, could have been devoted. I am surprised at Deputy Crotty because recently I visited Kilkenny to be present at the formal opening of a very important agricultural institution which was assisted and aided by this Government and by money voted by this House. Deputy Crotty was not there. Where was he? Why was he not there? Why is he now weeping crocodile tears about the few thousand pounds that could be spent under this Bill when he would not come to the opening of an important institute in his own town?

Now we get on to section 12, subsection (3). It has regard to the temperature in certain manufacturing establishments and it says that the Minister, after consultation with the Minister for Health, may make certain regulations. The Minister does not consult with the unions or with the Federation of Employers. He consults with his colleague, the Minister for Health, and after consultation with him, he may:

by regulations, for factories or for any class or description of factory or parts thereof, prescribe a standard of reasonable temperature (which may vary the standard prescribed by subsection (2) of this section for sedentary work) and prohibit the use of any methods of maintaining a reasonable temperature which, in his opinion, are likely to be injurious to the persons employed, and direct that thermometers be provided and maintained in such places and positions as may be specified.

In this connection the Minister may make regulations even prescribing the temperature that is to be maintained and where thermometers may be placed.

In regard to the question of light, we have the same sort of thing, prescribing regulations empowering the Minister to say and do certain things. In section 17, we have similar regulations with regard to sanitary conveniences, despite the fact that there are health authorities in all these areas. We have regulations in regard to the very shape and size of things that may or may not be done at the discretion of the Minister in regard to this Act and in making these regulations, the Minister does not consult the unions or anybody else but a colleague of his own. This runs all through the Act.

We find in section 13 (2) that the Minister may after consultation with the Minister for Health, by regulation, prescribe a standard of adequate ventilation for factories, or for any class or description of factories or parts thereof. Again, he does not consult the employers or the employees in the case but he does consult the Minister for Health.

We then move on to section 14 (2) where we find another example of this. This subsection deals with light and we find that the Minister, again after consultation with the Minister for Health, may:

by regulations, prescribe a standard of sufficient and suitable lighting for factories or for any class or description of factory or parts thereof, or for any process.

There is no mention of his having consultations with his colleagues in this.

He does, under subsection (2).

He does not have to consult the unions or the employees or factory owners or employers or boards of directors.

He must consult the Minister for Health.

Is that not a wonderful help in regard to the arguments which have been put forward against this Bill? Nothing could ever go wrong under the Act of 1955 because the Minister may have consultations under that Act with one of his colleagues in his own Government. This is the big safeguard, the big distinction between the two Acts, and Deputy Dillon expects the people to believe that there is any great difference between the regulations made under an Act passed by a Government of which he was a prominent member and the proposal now before the House.

Now we go on to section 17, subsection (2), which deals with the provision of sanitary conveniences where there is already operating a local health authority which normally has control of all these matters. Under section 17 (2), the Minister may:

after consultation with the Minister for Health, make regulations determining for factories or for any class or description of factory what is sufficient and suitable provision for the purposes of this section.

That is great stuff. It says that the Minister, by virtue of a law passed by the Coalition Government, may make regulations determining what is sufficient and suitable provision for the purposes of that Act.

Read subsection (3).

I will read what suits me.

That is not fair. Subsection (3) says that this section shall be enforced by the sanitary authorities.

So you did realise that there were such things as sanitary authorities but you certainly paid little attention to them. The Minister under this Act determined by regulation what is sufficient and suitable provision for the purposes of the section. After he has made his regulations determining what is sufficient and suitable, the sanitary authority is then called in to keep the place clean. That is what the Coalition Government thought of these authorities and they have not changed their minds very much since.

We find in those two Acts carried through in 1955 by the then Government everything that is contained in this Bill and a good deal more than the provisions they are now objecting to in this measure. I will leave Deputies at that and go on to deal with the actual misrepresentations of the Bill as a whole.

But, before I go on to that, maybe I should go back to another little Act in 1958, in case you might think I was being biased in some way.

I have not the 1958 Statutes.

I shall read it for the Deputy.

I would not believe the Minister. I caught him out once and I would not believe him even——

This is a true quotation of what is contained therein. I challenge the Deputy and every colleague of his who spoke today or last night to bring to this House a record of where, in 1958, when they were in Opposition also, they took exception to section 28 (1) (b) of the Offices Premises Act, 1958. I challenge and defy them to show me in this House or to show or to lay in this House one indication of somebody's having got up and made a song and dance about that particular subsection at that time when they were out of Government and could play act themselves as they have been doing today. But, even then, in their greatest form of playacting, they did not say one word against it. Here is what the section is and, in relation to office premises, here is what this Act is about.

We would not believe the Minister.

Office Premises Act, 1958, section 28 (1) (b)——

We shall check on itex post facto.

I shall begin by reading from the beginning:

28.—(1) An inspector shall, for the purposes of the execution of this Act, have power to do all or any of the following things, that is to say—

(a) to enter, inspect and examine at all reasonable times, by day and night, an office, and every part thereof, when he has reasonable cause to believe that any person is employed therein, and to enter by day any place which he has reasonable cause to believe to be an office and any part of any building of which an office forms part and in which he has reasonable cause to believe that explosive or highly inflammable materials are stored or used;

(b) to take with him a member of the Garda Síochána if he has reasonable cause to apprehend any serious obstruction in the execution of his duty.

If I were going in to look for a bomb, I should do the same thing. I should bring in the Army with me and I should be a damned fool if I did not.

It would be no harm to send in the Deputy first.

What about the local councils?

Stop blowing your gaff. What did you get?

We know how many seats Fine Gael won and how many seats Fianna Fáil lost. We know what the people think of you.

The Deputy is only codding himself. He is in cloud-cuckooland just like the people who say that we lost seats in Donegal. The point I want to get across is that, while we may allow for the extreme madness that might have overtaken the Deputies when in Government, having put through these vile things now complained of in this Bill, we cannot have the same excuse for them as in their slap-happy days in 1958 when anything was good enough in order to obstruct the Government of the day. I challenge any member who has spoken about the present Bill and against section 7 (1) (b), which deals with an inspector bringing a member of the Garda Síochána with him to show that, in this House in 1958, in exactly the same terms, every word, line, dot, iota of it, one of you is on record as opposing it in those days on these grounds that are now spuriously being pushed across the floor of this House——

We were looking then for gunpowder, explosive or highly inflammable material, not bullocks or sheep.

The Title of the Act is Office Premises Act, 1958.

What the Minister has read out deals with explosives——

Do not mind that. We might find it in his office. I should hate to lose the Deputy. At any rate, all this provides us with an example of the inconsistency and the hypocrisy that has been evident from the Opposition through the entire debate and up to the moment.

There is no hypocrisy on our part in regard to this matter.

Has the silent Deputy anything to say?

Never mind the silent Deputy. He thinks a lot.

I do not mind his thinking but I would please ask him not to think out loud because it puts me slightly off my line of thought.

I might say the wrong thing from the point of view of the Minister.

If Deputy Farrelly has something to say, then let him say it, but let him not confuse his older colleagues who are not as deep thinkers as he is. I have read out these quotations in order to try to get across to Deputies opposite that they are really holding themselves up to ridicule in their manner of approach because of the evident hypocrisy between their actions now and their views expressed against this measure in the light of their actions and the views they expressed some years ago.

The Minister was looking for gunpowder in the 1958 case but now it is a question of cattle. They are two different things. Let the Minister talk about the contents of the Livestock Marts Bill and never mind about the gunpowder.

I know the difference between gunpowder and a three-legged animal such as Deputy Dillon talks about.

Splendid. Hear, hear: I shall applaud the Minister.

What is really wrong here is that Fine Gael—the Deputy's colleagues—have, unfortunately for him, spent seven or eight hours talking of these things which I do agree and with my fullest apologies to the Chair and to the Members of the House are not what should be discussed on this measure. However, I, as Minister, as the only speaker from this side of the House, want to deal with these matters, lest people outside might be misled by the silly, ridiculous stupid hypocrisy that has been preached from the Opposition benches. It is for that reason only that I am doing this. I am not doing this because I like talking— not at all. I am doing it for the education of those over there, if such can be, but particularly to clarify what might be thought outside when what these people have said comes to be published. I want to explain to their lifetime supporters that it could be malice and hypocrisy and that they are to be accused for vacillations in their opinions and actions between 1957 and 1967.

That is generous of the Minister.

That is the hallmark of the Minister. One may have to dig to find it but it is there all right. We have had misleading statements from the Opposition in regard to the Livestock Marts Bill, 1967. Statements were uttered which would lead people to believe that the Opposition have less sense than they actually have. They are not always as nonsensical as they have displayed themselves to be in the past few hours. At the same time, looking further at this Office Premises Act, 1958, I would refer the House to section 28—still 28—but moving right down along quite a bit to sub-paragraph (e) of subsection (1), which says:

(e) to require any person whom he finds in an office and whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be employed in the office to give such information as it is in his power to give as to who is the occupier of the office;

That could be the cleaner or the caretaker. It could be a number of innocent people who have no relationship with the office as such at all and certainly no responsibility for the manner of its being carried on or the type of its construction, its facilities, its lighting, ventilation, sanitary conveniences, and so on. They may have nothing to do with these things. However, in that Act, which was passed in 1958 without any real demur from Fine Gael——

Unless he is a burglar, he must know the occupier of the premises in which he is found.

We amended this to conform to the wishes of the marts associations.

Indeed and you have not.

Likewise, the fellow in the yard or within mart premises, as provided in this Bill originally, could surely be taken to have some knowledge of those who employed him. However, we have removed this. It is not fair to ask a subordinate to give information whether as to the whereabouts of his employer or the owner, lest he may at that stage be under instructions from his employer, on pain of being dismissed, not to give the information. This is similar here, word for word, to what was originally intended in the Bill which we are amending. There was no kick against it in this, the Office Premises Act, 1958, which is a further indication of the vacillations and contradictions that are to be found only in the Fine Gael Party.

Let us leave that now and go on to the matters of importance in regard to this Bill. Deputy Donegan in one of his outbursts—which are typical of him and his Party unfortunately: another young man gone wrong—said that licences will be granted under this Act on a political basis. People who think that way naturally think that everybody else thinks likewise. If this is Deputy Donegan's reading in regard to how a Minister will use his discretion, then we can only say that is the only way he would use it if he got it, and please God, he will not. It is not the way any responsible Government or Minister uses discretion.

He went on to say that marts are giving a service. I said that they were giving a service and undoubtedly a great service. They will continue to provide a service and possibly will be of greater importance as the years go on, but they also have a responsibility to the people they serve, and this does not mean only a responsibility to the members who compose the co-operatives but a responsibility to serve those whom the fairs previously served, regardless of membership of the co-operative or other organisation, whether it be political or vocational.

This is something that should not be lost sight of but which apparently is being shrouded over by the Fine Gael people when they talk about the great service the marts are rendering. Both of the mart associations in discussions with me last Friday agreed that they have a responsibility as well as rendering a service and they are prepared to meet those responsibilities down the line in the manner in which I have said, that the individual farmers' rights of sale and freedom to sell and buy in the fairs they have displaced will be honoured in the marts in the future.

They do not in any way try to back away from that. They do not say: "We are giving a great service", without agreeing that they have a great responsibility. If Deputy Donegan had control, licences would be granted only on a political basis firstly, and secondly, for the benefit of the few who could call themselves his friends, and then to hell with the rest of the farmers. Fortunately this is not the outlook of any of the marts, whether private or co-operative, and I hope it never will.

He also said, in the exaggerated way one can expect from Deputy Donegan, that fines and imprisonment will be imposed for technical and minor offences. The fact of the matter is that it is not the Minister's business and he will not be fining people or imposing prison sentences. You can be quite sure that minor or technical infringements will never even be brought to the prosecution stage, let alone convictions being obtained.

Deputy Donegan is doing nothing for the community by talking wildly on a matter like this. He knows that technical and minor infringements will not concern us under this Bill and that it is the major infringements which have to be followed up. These are the matters which will be brought to court and on which the courts will pass judgment, if they think fit, and not the Minister for Agriculture. He is trying to frighten everybody into believing that this is some horrible instrument which was never before seen here and which will beat down and crush everybody dealing with the marts. That is Deputy Donegan's contribution to the Bill and to the understanding the farmers should have of what this Bill means.

Then we have the silly, stupid assertion by the same Deputy, not surprisingly, that inspectors will dictate to the auctioneers, that a bullock will be put up and bid for and the auctioneer will say: "Going at £55 once, going at £55 twice, going at £55 for the last time", and then knock it down, and then this fellow with the white coat, as he described him, will step up and say: "Mr. Auctioneer, this is not as we prescribed, and you will have to put the bullock through the ring again and delay three minutes before declaring the last bid, and then knock it down". Only Deputy Donegan in the Fine Gael Party would be capable of this asinine approach to a matter like this, this stupid, ludicrous approach to a serious matter. This is what he wants to implant in the minds of simple people, that this is what we want the money for, to pay fellows in white coats to tell auctioneers how to knock down a bullock after getting the best bid. Only Deputy Donegan could drop to that level of comment and expect to be taken seriously—and he does expect to be taken seriously. That is the queer thing about it. He likes to be taken seriously.

Not really?

He does. I thought it was only——

The electorate take him seriously.

Yes; Drogheda had a fair welcome for him at the local elections. Our fellows were not there at all, according to these people over there.

They had 1,000 fewer votes.

At the first meeting you will know where they are.

Attend the first county council meeting——

I would love to but I am not on the council any longer, and it is a pity because I really had a lot to give to it. I am sorry I am not back on it. I am not being modest about it. Everybody agrees that that is so and that is why, after ten years of being told this, I must believe it myself.

Now to come to Deputy Governey. He is generally a mild sort of man and does not talk much out of turn. Even when he is tutored in what to say and even though it may be ugly, he presents it in such a fashion that it almost sounds right. He alleges, as the chorus have been alleging for the past six or seven hours, that the Bill is being rushed. I cannot agree. There is nothing unduly rushed about it. It was introduced on 31st May and ordered for printing on the same day. On 14th June, the full text was circulated to Fine Gael to read, all 12 sections, none of which is very long. They had a week to digest it and came back to discuss it on Second Reading on 21st June, and 12 days later the first amendments to this horrible piece of legislation were received. I can see nothing rushed about that.

All I can say is, and nobody in Fine Gael can deny it, that they have set themselves—for whatever purpose I do not know; the local elections are over, although some of them over there do not seem to realise it—to carry on in the same manner as before the elections and to make this Bill appear something which it is not and to misrepresent it in every possible way. They are determined, and have decided, to block it as long as they possibly can and to come in and talk about the rules and procedures of the House and to quote Standing Orders when in fact they themselves have deliberately drawn up a rota written in red ink, with instructions as to who is to go next and for how long and at what speed he is to talk. These are the people who have come in not to help to make the Bill a better one, who are not doing anything that would be helpful to the farmers, but who merely, through some stupid political misthinking, continue their opposition and misrepresentation to the point of pure, straight, downright obstruction of this measure. They read written documents that the Fine Gael jockey, or whatever you like to call him, puts before them in the House telling Deputy Crotty, perhaps, to slow down and telling Deputy somebody else——

(Interruptions.)

Tell us the story about yourself and the Taoiseach.

The Minister should be allowed to conclude his speech.

Continue his speech.

One follows the other. I mention this, not as giving away a secret of your operations over there, but merely to show there is a deliberate, determined thought-out method for the greatest possible obstruction of this measure. We had the ranting and raving by Deputy Dillon about the rights of Deputies—he is a past master at that—when he knows for a fact that his Party and himself have been in collusion to bring about a situation wherein, by every means at their disposal, they have determined they will obstruct this Bill to the last for as long as they can.

As I have pointed out, there is appalling hypocrisy in regard to Acts in the past, which were agreed with then and condemned now. They ask for the rights of Deputies to be protected. They ask for all they can get, with their tongues in their cheeks, knowing quite well that they have laid all these plots, with these written instructions on runners, weights, times, speeds, where he is to go and when he is to pull him. That is all written in the little jotter in red ink.

You learned a right lot from the Curragh.

I did, indeed. If we are going to play the rules of the House, there are rules which we on this side of the House can play. Deputy Dillon, as defender of the rights of Deputies in Standing Orders, has magnanimously agreed to back me if I should want to play the rules of the House. Therefore, when I come to play mine, there will not be any objection to it.

Let us get on with these queer comments made. We had Deputy Lyons talking very heatedly, which is unusual for him, about this section bringing in the Garda. Despite the fact that he knows as soon as the Opposition allows us to get to the Committee Stage, that section is gone, he almost blows a gasket about going back to the days of coercion. He went on further to state that these people who might be questioned on a mart premises would be regarded as informers, and he waxed eloquent about our dislike of informers and so forth. This is all very well for just anybody to say, but for a Deputy to describe the terms of this Bill, which are in several previous Acts, in this manner is not doing a service to the House and certainly not doing a service to the country. There is no question of coercing anybody in this matter. There is no question of informers being set up under this Bill, any more than under the Acts passed by the Coalition. All of this is bad for our people and bad for the operation of this Bill and previous Acts.

Deputy Creed talked about the great work being done by Cork Marts. As I said already, Cork Marts joined the deputation of the IAOS which I received. They left me in a far happier frame of mind than when they arrived. Not only did I get their views on matters they felt they might want changes in and not only did I get useful information to guide us in this measure, but I also had the very positive reaction during the discussion that the explanations I was able to give of this measure were completely at variance with what has been put across to them by various organs, sponsored and inspired no doubt by the misleading of Fine Gael before the election.

And Deputy Clinton.

Deputy Clinton would not mislead. Deputy Creed will be happy to know that the Cork Marts people are as much appreciated by me as they are by him. I have talked with some of their representatives and they are going back down south much happier than they were when they came up. This was because they were getting the truth about the Bill rather than what Fine Gael said it contained.

We also had what has become in a relatively short time an old chestnut, this talk about the Bill being inappropriate at this time. Because of differences already past with some of our farming organisations we should not do these things now, lest we might hurt their feelings. We have had this sort of clap-trap talk over there, as if we and the other people were children and would feel aggrieved because somebody did something because we were not getting on well three, four or six months ago. There is a great case being made on this basis by these silly people. They talk as if they were trying to do some good, whereas what they are hoping for is that what we are doing, or anything we have done or propose to do, they will be able to twist around and use to cause friction. This is what they are hoping for. This is why they are making these nice pleas: "Do not do it now; it is not the right time; it might not be taken well; certain people will not like it; you could not have picked a worse time; leave it over until next year and maybe things will be better."

Does anybody in this House seriously say that when we have got this measure through the normal process of Government, agreed by them, put into print, introduced in this session, the Second Reading debate taken, and when we have got to the stage of this Money Resolution, we should now put the matter in cold storage because it is alleged here that certain people would not like it? Everybody in this House and outside it knows that, if any Government waited until everybody liked anything they did, there would never be anything done. Nothing has ever been passed here that there has not been a certain amount of opposition to, whether sectional or otherwise. This happens here, year in and year out, under any Government. For these people to be coming in here asking us not to put it through because it is inappropriate or because of the difficulties of the past, you would think to the Lord that there had been some sort of civil war or executions or something.

The nearest thing to it.

If you had your way, there would have been.

That is not true. We did our best to avoid it.

I know you did your best to make any possibility there was of a peaceful settlement go, and your Deputy Sweetman, who is not here at the moment, could tell you a bit about that as well.

Your Taoiseach would have settled it and you would not let him.

Deputy Clinton, Deputy Donegan and Deputy Sweetman, to my knowledge, meddled in these waters and did not make them any cleaner.

You were the nigger in the woodpile. You bullied your own Taoiseach.

They did an ill turn on more than one occasion in regard to this dispute and difference and they will not be allowed to forget it, even though they want to.

The Minister will not be believed by anybody.

What about the night you broke the 440 record from the House to Earlsfort Terrace? Do you remember going out of the House like a scalded cat?

I did not stand in Earlsfort Terrace. I deny it emphatically and I say that that is an untruth.

Do you remember, when it was supposed to be all settled, going out of the House?

That is an untruth, and I deny it, and I defy the Minister to prove it.

You bullied your own Taoiseach out of settling. You want to break the NFA.

You failed to get any political kudos out of it. You worked it for others and got nothing yourself.

So Deputy Donegan was meddling?

Yes, and proud of it.

Thank you very much.

And your Taoiseach would have settled it and you would not let him.

Self-admission is very gratifying. I would hate to be pinning it on the Deputy. The Deputy has admitted meddling in these very troubled waters.

I would ask the Minister to produce proof that I ran from here to Earlsfort Terrace?

Did you cycle?

I did neither. I was not in Earlsfort Terrace.

Did you leave the House on the night in question?

Everybody has to leave the House at some time.

At approximately ten minutes past nine?

No recollection.

That is what I thought.

(Interruptions.)

If the Deputy denies that he was in contact with the persons concerned, I accept the Deputy's denial.

Of course I do not deny that I had any contact. I did more than anybody else in this House to settle it.

That is what I am saying. You were cranking it up but you were ill-advised. These fellows behind you were pushing you on, using your innocence, but they would not do it themselves. There is no doubt about it, Deputy Donegan put his two hooves in it this evening. Thank you very much.

We did our level best, the three of us, and you stopped us and your Taoiseach would have settled it, and I will repeat that again and again.

Of course, you have been repeating it for months.

He would have had to split a Cabinet that is split anyway.

You have repeated this untruth month after month day after day until your little brain has become imprinted with it and you believe it.

My brain is as big as yours. It is disciplined and trained.

You have not got one or, having got one cannot use it. You are welcome to either.

You are the man who stopped the Taoiseach from settling the NFA row.

Nonsense. When we have a Taoiseach, we have a Taoiseach.

That is what you think—four of them at the moment.

You usurp his functions any time you can.

What we have in Fianna Fáil—and you misrepresent it —is a Taoiseach and several capable of being Taoiseach. You people do not know the difference. We do.

(Interruptions.)

I hate to see the Deputy confused. There is one Taoiseach and only one, and always has been. At present it is Jack Lynch. I am one of his greatest admirers and greatest supporters——

——and the greatest advocate on his behalf for the office of Taoiseach.

Why did you run against him?

I was a candidate before he became one but not afterwards. I withdrew in his favour, if you want to go back and read the papers as released that evening at 6 o'clock. At any rate we are not bereft of material for Taoiseach or Leader of our Party, as you people have displayed you are.

Onede facto and four de jure.

We have not got behind us in this House people thrown out as unacceptable.

What about low standards in high places? Who said that? Deputy Colley.

Do not mind that.

It is not dirty milk.

(Interruptions).

Will Deputies please allow the Minister to make his speech? Will Deputy Corry please stop interrupting?

Low standards in high places, Deputy Colley said.

On a point of order, might I inquire the strict relevance of the succession of Taoiseachship of the Fianna Fáil Government to the Marts Bill or the Money Resolution associated therewith? The only connecting link that I can think of is Taca.

The Minister usurps the Taoiseach's function.

As I have already pointed out, we have no rejected leaders on these benches. We have no rejects on our benches.

You have four of them, including yourself.

What about Lemass who was to lead on, and now we are being "Lynched"?

He resigned: his place was not usurped. He was not pushed out.

What about the night of the long knives and the four of you?

Remember the night we had after the 1955 elections and the performance then?

What performance?

The performance of the Fine Gael Party on Deputy Dillon, blaming the rot on him.

(Interruptions.)

The relevance the succession of Taoiseachs has to the Marts Bill would be that I am delighted to have the opportunity to refute the allegations being made that there is any difference in our Cabinet either between myself and the Taoiseach or any other members within that Cabinet, by which allegations it is sought to imply to the public and the farmers outside that this Bill is not a Government Bill. I want to tell the House that, like all Bills brought forward by Fianna Fáil, this is a Government Bill, fully and completely and absolutely supported by our Cabinet and by our Party, each and every member of it.

Including Deputy Corry?

Including the lot. To get on to some more of these things that should be laid to rest before we finish with this part of the Bill, may I say that we had Deputy Fitzpatrick from Cavan moaning that there was no money for anything. All I want to say in this regard is that the filibuster that has already taken place and the number of hours this debate has gone on, in my estimation, have probably cost as much as it would take to run this Bill, if it should become an Act, for a year. In other words, the cost of all the talk that has been done and the time that has been wasted would pay for the operation of this Bill for a year. Then Deputies ask where can we find the money.

Last night somebody mentioned Taca. The funny thing is that the man who mentioned it was the last man who should, Deputy T.F. O'Higgins. He suggested that we might get it from Taca and that we might run a tea party. Somebody suggested that we should run a champagne party. Deputy O'Higgins is the man who could be credited with this sort of operation which has been successfully carried through by Fianna Fáil, although I credit Deputy O'Higgins with starting it with his tea parties and champagne parties.

(Cavan): You would get a good many cups of tea for £100. Fianna Fáil are saving them surtax through the Budget. They have a net gain of £50. They gave £100 but they can get £150 relief.

What are you getting back at the tea parties?

(Cavan): You could have a lot of tea parties for £100.

I only mention this to give credit to Deputy T.F. O'Higgins who started the idea that Fianna Fáil successfully went on with. It started with tea parties and champagne parties, and then Taca, which works, and his does not.

Another thing I want to say in relation to this Bill is that I have been charged with not giving any indication to the House as to how much money may be involved. I understand, and my people reckon, that the amount of money possibly involved in any year will be quite modest. On an estimate, as near as we can make it at this stage, it will not exceed £10,000. My own belief is that it will not reach even half of that. It is not intended to have white-coated inspectors standing at an auctioneer's elbow like a bookie's clerk. This is a figment of the imagination of some of the Deputies across there; I think one of them was Deputy Donegan. We shall not have people standing around watching how auctions are carried on, going from one mart to another, day in and day out. We shall make our regulations in consultation with the marts associations, both co-operative and private, and with the guidance of the deliberations of the NAC, we shall regulate the conduct and the operations of the marts. The day-to-day operations of the marts will be governed by bye-laws that will be drawn up by the marts themselves and which we will get and approve of. These will be publicly displayed in the marts, not only for the protection and guidance of those who visit them but to assist the mart operators themselves.

That is the manner in which we expect these regulations to be drawn up. If we find that by discrimination, intimidation or any other malpractice, an individual's rights are being interfered with, whether he be a buyer or a seller but particularly if he is a farmer, the intention is that we shall use the powers sought in this Bill to protect his interest. The smallest and most insignificant farmer will have the value and the power of this legislation available for his protection, and this is what the members of the Fine Gael Party do not understand. I said only a few weeks ago before the election—and it is quite obvious I was right—that they would not know a small farmer if they saw one. It is the same in this regard. They do not see what we are trying to do, or if they do, they are being blatantly dishonest in misrepresenting it. This Bill is for the protection and in the interest of the farming community.

Who sought this protection?

Who sought the Deputy to come to this House?

A few thousand people.

Before that?

(Cavan): Where is there anything in the Bill to protect small farmers against losses?

Where is there anything to protect the dockyard workers against Deputy Fitzpatrick?

Deputies should cease interrupting.

In the Bill there is power to make regulations which will enable conditions to be attached to the granting of a licence. One of the things I will assuredly do and to which neither of the associations objected—in fact, they welcomed it—is to require that either a fidelity bond or an insurance bond be signed or some other arrangement made, as a condition attaching to a licence, for the protection of the farming community who have lost money.

That is not written into the Bill.

(Cavan): There is not a word about that in the Bill.

There is no word in the Bill of half the things Deputies over there talked about.

(Cavan): What about the civic guards?

That is going out on the Committee Stage, or does the Deputy want it left there?

What about paragraph (f)?

That is not it. Can the Deputy not read?

Go to paragraph (f), and you can still have your civic guards.

Go to paragraph (d).

"such other powers as may be necessary"—Garda, Army, anything you like. That is paragraph (f), the one the Minister is not removing. He had the Garda and the Army out before. He can have them out again.

The Deputy should not excite himself. Getting back to the Bill, what I want to make quite clear is that this Bill is for the protection of the farmers. Nothing that Fine Gael can say will alter that fact, and that fact has been a sore disappointment to them in the recent local elections.

It has not.

One swallow does not make a summer.

Sixty-eight swallows.

(Cavan): You are the fellow who has the one swallow.

Getting back to what Fine Gael does not like to hear, let me repeat that this Bill is for the benefit and the protection of the farmers in the fair and due transaction of their business, particularly in relation to the buying and selling of livestock. I repeat that intimidation or discrimination will not be tolerated in a matter of importance to the farmers such as mart operations, for the reason that no one has any prescriptive right to set up a mart to usurp the freedom that obtained from time immemorial for the farmers of the free sale of their produce at the old fairs. The marts are coming in and taking their place, and the two associations with whom I have been in consultation agree that their responsibility is to maintain and retain for our farmers that right which they have enjoyed on the fair greens throughout the country for generations.

This Bill will ensure that that can be done. It will also ensure that financial protection will be provided for those who sell in the marts, and that we shall not have in the future any farmer or any number of farmers losing thousands of pounds as they have already done, due to the insolvency of particular marts which have been closed down and possibly some Deputies are aware that there are others not far from closing down or in serious difficulties. We do not want to see any of them in difficulty or going on the rocks. However, we must particularly protect the farmers whom they are there to serve by requiring insurance or a fidelity bond that will cover losses, if and when any of the marts perish as a result of competition, incompetence, or what you will.

These are the things we want to see in this Bill, and Fine Gael should get wise to themselves at this stage. They should resolve to change the decision they have made to obstruct this Bill for some sort of political advantage that they see accruing from it or perhaps because of pique that they did not get the return from their misrepresentations of the Bill and their exploitation of the difficulties between the farmers and the Government before the local elections.

(Cavan): Next Wednesday will tell us that.

They think that by talking and repeating and obstructing for the sake of obstructing at this particular time, when normally we would hope to be finished, at this annual crucial period, they will browbeat, blackmail or intimidate the Government or myself into dropping the Bill until next term, as if it were something of no account. If it was of so little account, we would not have brought it here. Since it did merit being brought before the House, there is no reason why we should not deal with it in a constructive manner and every reason why it should not be dealt with obstructively by Fine Gael as they did here last night and again today. We should get on to the Committee Stage which is the real bones of any debate on any Bill.

I can assure Deputies in Fine Gael and in the Labour Party who may still have doubts on the point that this Bill is useful to farmers. I shall explain fully how it works and that it is not the diabolical instrument they have pictured it throughout the country in the past couple of months. It has a useful purpose and it will serve the community well, now and in the future. In these times when we talk of entering Europe, whether that be near or far, how many Deputies opposite who criticise the lack of necessity for this Bill, are aware that EEC have already drawn up regulations relating to the import by them of live cattle which would imply the export by us of live cattle? These regulations require by their very nature that we must have certain controls in the marts and selling points in this country, and without this Bill we would not have that effective control to enable us to conform to the regulations of the very Community the farmers and Fine Gael are clamouring to get into.

(Cavan): Will the Minister apply the regulations to fairs?

How many Deputies are aware that this is so and, if they are so aware, have they stopped to think what it means? How can the regulations be there enabling us to conform to certain requirements in regard to cattle going to Common Market countries unless we can have some say regarding the working of these marts?

(Cavan): If they are necessary for marts, surely they are necessary for Donegal fairs?

(Interruptions.)

Surely the Deputy is not such a clown as to believe all he has read about Donegal fair?

(Cavan): Any fair we are familiar with.

What I am familiar with is that in that historic little bit of my county, whatever about the fair that is so much talked about and despite all the talk, criticism and propaganda made out of that fair, Fianna Fáil gained a seat in the local elections. That should go far to disprove the misrepresentation and lying propaganda that were attempted.

(Cavan): Will the Minister explain why, if the regulations are necessary for marts because of EEC, they are not necessary for fairs?

I spoke about freedom of access to these places and there is such a tradition from time immemorial, but where livestock are being displayed inside walls and compounds such as these marts have, then that right must be preserved. Having gone to the trouble of providing for that right in this Bill, it is only right that these other considerations should be availed of to add to the Bill and so make the Bill not only cover today and yesterday but also tomorrow and the day after, I would hope, through the changing circumstances and changing pattern of cattle sales. Surely the Deputy would not want a Minister to bring in a Bill and then come back next week to bring in another?

(Cavan): The Minister did that very recently.

The Deputy would castigate the Minister—rightly, I should say—if that happened, for not seeing beyond his nose. I know that is what Fine Gael would do if they did anything at all. Usually they do not do much and therefore cannot make many mistakes. Fine Gael are a rare Party. They changed their name but never their nature.

Fianna Fáil changed their name and somersaulted also. Remember, they were to abolish the Border and restore Irish; no man was worth more than £500 a year and now that man has over £80,000 a year. That is a fair change.

Will the Deputy allow me to finish on this because I do not want to hold up the people opposite from the obstructive tactics they embarked on yesterday and today. Fine Gael changed their name years ago but not their nature. They have changed some of their personnel lately. They have acquired some personnel in the local elections but they were Fine Gael also.

(Cavan): Wait until next Wednesday.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Donegan is absent. He has probably gone to an auction to tell them how it should be run, as he already told us how we should put people beside the auctioneer to tell him when he is doing wrong when knocking down a beast and to delay so many minutes. What he forgets is that the people who were the greatest auctioneers of all time were the predecessors of Fine Gael, namely, Cumann na nGaedheal. They have been selling all down the years. When the Six Counties were sold, they were the auctioneers. When they were selling the transatlantic planes, they were the auctioneers.

(Interruptions.)

They sold the farmers with their land annuities to Britain, and they were the auctioneers. They sold out everything any time they could get anything for it. Deputy Donegan would need to be careful lest people take him seriously since he comes from one of the most outstanding firms of auctioneers, namely, Fine Gael, formerly Cumann na nGaedheal.

"The British market has gone for ever". Fianna Fáil have let the bottom fall out of cattle prices ever since.

Do not worry. We know Fine Gael are hoping they will go down more.

(Interruptions.)

TheIrish Press every day—“Further Drop in Cattle Prices”.

I think everybody in the House will probably agree that when the Minister for Agriculture described himself this morning as the man with the concise mind, the man of few words, the reticent Minister, he must have been walking in his sleep.

At this stage I should like to suggest——

Is this a point of order?

Yes. I suggest that the question be now put.

The Minister has no authority to do that.

I understand that the Ceann Comhairle must be in the Chair for this motion. Perhaps I should give notice now that I wish to have the question put.

The Minister has had more than enough. He cannot take it.

Get Deputy Dillon's book of rules.

The Ceann Comhairle made a ruling that we are in Committee on this. He made that ruling again at 2 o'clock.

That is not what I am talking about. I move that the question be now put.

That obviously has not been accepted by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle has no power under Standing Orders except to put the question. The Ceann Comhairle will be in the Chair and he can deal with it. I am asking the Ceann Comhairle to take the Chair.

The Ceann Comhairle is not here. I have been called to speak and I think I have a right to speak. The Minister is just jackacting. He obviously does not want to hear the truth.

Nobody will back me up more than Deputy Dillon; he has assured me.

The Deputy may not continue the discussion until the House decides on the question. The question has been put and until——

The question cannot be put until the Cheann Comhairle is here.

The Minister has put the question.

The question cannot be put when the Ceann Comhairle is not here. I have been called to speak and I must insist that I be allowed to speak. The manner in which the Minister intends to operate this Bill——

There is no question of further discussion until the Ceann Comhairle takes over.

I want to explain that if the Minister talked for a month none of us would pay heed.

(Interruptions.)

He put on the same act when he was putting through the Planning Bill and the Housing Bill in this House and he gave us endless assurances that were not written into the Bill but he gave us these endless assurances that if it was not operated this way, it would be operated the other way. However, when we put it to the test, the good old civil servants and the good old local authority officials, who are also staunch civil servants, replied: "This is the Act; we are operating the Act; we could not care less what the Minister says."

I do not see how Deputy Clinton can continue this discussion. There is nothing before the House at the moment except "That the question be now put".

It cannot be put.

There is nothing before the House. I am just having a chat with my friends and those Deputies love listening to me.

It is no use putting anything to you.

Do not shout at the Chair; you have just walked into the House.

(Interruptions.)
An Ceann Comhairle took the Chair.

Things have been happening, Sir, in your absence and I think you should be brought up to date.

I am sorry, Sir, that you should have to be brought in. I understand that when moving that the question be put, it is necessary that you be in the Chair. I put the question to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

On a point of order, if a Deputy offers to speak while the Dáil is in Committee on Finance, he is entitled to do so. There was no formal motion that the closure be proposed. It is not in order when a Deputy offers to speak on Committee on Finance to move that the question be now put.

The formal motion now put overrides that. It is put to me now.

It was not put.

In all the circumstances, I am accepting the motion.

On a point of order——

There will be no point of order.

Deputy Clinton rose.

Deputy Allen might have some manners. I stood to speak and I was called by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I started to speak and at that point the Minister moved that the question be put. Is that enough?

Might I say that before doing so, I waited until I heard whether the Deputy was starting on something new. The Deputy started on something we have heard all before. It was just wasting the time of the House.

The Chair proposes to put the question: "That the question be now put."

They just cannot take it, Sir. They do not want the people to hear the truth.

It is completely irregular to speak twice.

I remember when Deputy Dr. Ryan spoke three times on a similar motion.

(Interruptions.)

You have the right to move; it is the only way you get your work done—by the guillotine.

Question put: "That the question be now put".
The Committee divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 40.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Boland, Kevin.
  • Booth, Lionel.
  • Boylan, Terence.
  • Brady, Philip.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Burke, Patrick J.
  • Calleary, Phelim A.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Carty, Michael.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Clohessy, Patrick.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Crowley, Flor.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Don.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dowling, Joe.
  • Egan, Nicholas.
  • Fahey, John.
  • Fanning, John.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Dublin South-Central).
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • Foley, Desmond.
  • Gallagher, James.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gibbons, Hugh.
  • Gibbons, James M.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kennedy, James J.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Lemass, Seán.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Patrick.
  • Lynch, Ceila.
  • Lynch, John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • Meaney, Tom.
  • Millar, Anthony G.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Mooney, Patrick.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Nolan, Thomas.
  • Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Donogh.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Barrett, Stephen D.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Belton, Paddy.
  • Burke, Joan T.
  • Burton, Philip.
  • Clinton, Mark A.
  • Connor, Patrick.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Dunne, Seán.
  • Dunne, Thomas.
  • Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
  • Farrelly, Denis.
  • Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Cavan).
  • Governey, Desmond.
  • Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
  • Kenny, Henry.
  • Larkin, Denis.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • Lindsay, Patrick J.
  • Lyons, Michael D.
  • McAuliffe, Patrick.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • Mullen, Michael.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Donnell, Patrick.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Hara, Thomas.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, Richie.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Carty and Geoghegan; Níl: Deputies Pattison and L'Estrange.
Question declared carried.
Money Resolution put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 39.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Boland Kevin.
  • Booth, Lionel.
  • Boylan, Terence.
  • Brady, Philip.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Burke, Patrick J.
  • Calleary, Phelim A.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Carty, Michael.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Clohessy, Patrick.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Crowley, Flor.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Don.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dowling, Joe.
  • Egan, Nicholas.
  • Fahey, John.
  • Fanning, John.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Dublin South-Central).
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • Foley, Desmond.
  • Gallagher, James.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gibbons, Hugh.
  • Gibbons, James M.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kennedy, James J.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Lemass, Seán.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Patrick.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • Meaney, Tom.
  • Millar, Anthony G.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Mooney, Patrick.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Nolan, Thomas.
  • Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Donogh.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Barrett, Stephen D.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Belton, Paddy.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Dunne, Seán.
  • Dunne, Thomas.
  • Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
  • Farrelly, Denis.
  • Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Cavan).
  • Governey, Desmond.
  • Burke, Joan T.
  • Burton, Philip.
  • Clinton, Mark A.
  • Connor, Patrick.
  • Hogan, Patrick. (South Tipperary).
  • Kenny, Henry.
  • Larkin, Denis.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • Lindsay, Patrick J.
  • Lyons, Michael D.
  • McAuliffe, Patrick.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • Mullen, Michael.
  • O'Donnell, Patrick.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Hara, Thomas.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, Richie.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Carty and Geoghegan; Níl: Deputies Pattison and L'Estrange.
Question declared carried.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 13th July, 1967.