I move amendment No. 1:
In subsection (1), page 3, line 34, to delete "regulation" and insert "regulations".
This is purely a drafting amendment.
Committee on Finance. - Wool Marketing Bill, 1968: Committee Stage.
SECTION 1.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
To add to the section a new subsection as follows:—
"(3) A reference in this Act to a person shall include bodies corporate or unincorporated."
I have an idea that this is covered in the Bill, but I wanted to make sure it is covered. I have a vague recollection that in some previous Bill I put in something like this as a safeguard. I am sure there is a definition Act, which was not available to me as a reference when I was trying to amend this Bill. I wanted to show particularly that co-operative societies were included in this word "person" and that they could not be excluded, because co-operative societies have a very important part to play if this Bill is to be the success we all hope it will be and if we are to arrive at the point where the whole business of selling wool and the preparation for the selling of wool, is to be conducted in the manner in which it should be and in such a way that the producer will get the maximum prices for his wool eventually. It is simply because of my concern to ensure that co-operatives came under the heading of "person" that I tabled this amendment. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether in fact this is right because I think he will agree that it is important that they should not be left out.
The Deputy's assumption is correct. Under section 11 of the Interpretation Act, 1937 it is provided that "person" includes a body. The provision reads as follows:
The word "person" shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be construed as importing a body corporate (whether a corporation aggregate or a corporation sole) and an unincorporated body of persons as well as an individual.
As the Deputy suggested, this is already covered.
That satisfies me.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 3, in the name of Deputy Clinton, and if the Deputy agrees, we could discuss with it amendment No. 26 as both form a composite proposal.
I agree. I move amendment No. 3:
Before section 3 to insert a new section as follows:—
"(1) On the establishment day there shall be established a body to be known as An Chomhairle Olla (in this Act referred to as An Chomhairle) to perform the functions assigned to it by this Act.
(2) An Chomhairle shall consist of a chairman and eleven other members.
(3) The provisions of the Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to An Chomhairle."
When studying the Bill to see how I felt it should be amended, I found that it was necessary not only to change section 12 but to bring it forward, because at this point we start allocating responsibilities. This amendment deals with section 12 particularly, in which the Minister sets up a body with a maximum of 11 people and which could have as few as six. There is no magic in my suggestion that it should be 12. When I sat down to consider the various bodies which I felt had a contribution to make to this whole scheme and to the entire organisation of the wool business, its production, presentation, grading and marketing, I arrived at the point where we would have at least 12 people. I feel sure that the Minister will see no objection to any of these.
We should know in advance that producers particularly would be well represented on this body because their wholehearted co-operation is essential at every point, from production to manufacture, if this scheme is to be a success and if it is to achieve the objectives for which it is being brought in. I want to see full producer involvement and for that reason, in amendment 26, I have set out the way in which this body should be composed.
I propose in my amendment that the members of An Chomhairle shall be appointed by the Minister as follows: two members selected and appointed by the Minister, one of whom shall be chairman. It is essential that the Minister should have this sort of contact with An Chomhairle Olla in order to know how it is operating and in order to have a measure of control over what is happening, because the Minister has final responsibility. Two people, one of whom would be chairman, would be in a position to keep him well informed of everything that was taking place in this important body. Two members then should be nominated by the pedigree sheep societies. There are a number of pedigree sheep societies and they should be entitled to at least two people on this board. That is a personal view. Outside of the pedigree sheep societies, you have the Combined Sheep Farmers Association and a number of other bodies very much involved in and concerned with sheep and wool and the least they should have is two members directly nominated by them. It is also proposed that two members should be nominated by the wool trade. It is extremely important that their views should be heard and that they should be there to inform producers about what the market held and why it was important to observe certain standards and to go to the trouble of producing wool in a certain way, and also to be able to put the consumers' point of view.
I also propose that one member should be nominated by the manufacturers. This is also important. From the sales end, I thought it was extremely important that one member be nominated by An Córas Tráchtála because a considerable amount of sales and promotional work will be called for. We could not look to any better group than Córas Tráchtála to supply a member for this particular purpose. I also suggest that one member be nominated by the IAOS.
It is a little unfortunate that nowhere in the Minister's Second Reading speech did he mention the co-operative societies or co-operation in this whole scheme of trying to find a more efficient and effective way of handling, grading and marketing wool. The co-operative societies have an important part to play in this scheme and should be entitled to at least one member.
I also suggest that one member should be nominated by An Foras Talúntais. A considerable amount of research has been undertaken by An Foras Talúntais into the production of high-class wool and they have quite a contribution to make, on the production end particularly. It would be wrong to exclude them.
Finally, I suggest one member to be nominated by the National Farmers Association. This is the only organisation not concerned solely with sheep or wool which I have included but it is a national organisation, the largest national farmers organisation we have, and naturally sheep and wool are of concern to them. It would help this Bill very considerably, and help the legislation and the aims and objectives behind the legislation, if before it was enacted, it was known that this sort of membership made up the body that was now going to take a new look at the whole business of producing, presenting and manufacturing wool. A new confidence would be generated as a result of the very names of these organisations.
It is for that reason I put forward this amendment. I trust the Minister will see his way to accepting it. I have deliberately used "nominated" rather than "selected" by the Minister in order to avoid any suspicion of political motivation. This is the way it should be done. This is the way in which we will get this body working in such fashion that they will take a real interest and know all the reasons why, particularly the producers, they should be doing various things. A great deal of the inferior production, handling and grading is due in large measure to the fact that people are not convinced it will pay them to go to trouble. In many cases they do not know the reasons why it is important to go to trouble. The only way to educate them is to have them really doing the job themselves, with, of course, all the guidance and assistance necessary.
I support this amendment. By giving representation to the various bodies mentioned by Deputy Clinton, one will have a truly representative Comhairle and a Comhairle effective in successfully carrying out its functions. Córas Tráchtála is entitled to representation; similarly, the IAOS is entitled to representation. As Deputy Clinton pointed out, the co-operative movement has an important role to play in wool marketing, as well as the other aspects of agriculture, and co-operation lends itself very satisfactorily to this type of operation. If my memory serves me correctly, there are one or two successful examples of local co-operative societies engaging in the buying and marketing of wool. I would be very much in favour of granting representation to the IAOS and Córas Tráchtála for these reasons. The wool will have to be exported. A market will have to be found for it. Finding markets is the precise function of Córas Tráchtála. As far as Foras Talúntais is concerned, as Deputy Clinton pointed out, our Agricultural Research Institute is engaged in a great deal of research not alone in relation to sheep production but also in relation to the technical aspects of wool production. A board drawn from the various bodies mentioned here would assure success. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.
There is nothing, in my opinion, to be gained by tying down membership to a fixed figure. Any variation in membership will have to be done through the medium of an order, which will come before the House. The House can then discuss the order and, if there is anything improper, there will be an opportunity of changing it. We are about to embark on something new and there is a danger that we might create unnecessary difficulties for ourselves by tying down. We might be working against the best interests of the Comhairle. The Deputy mentions a few bodies — CTT, the NFA, the IAOS, the pedigree sheep societies. The latter could be quite difficult because the choice might be too wide. A good many groupings would be involved, groupings in which there is no real federation of the various elements involved. This could pose the problem as to which element should legitimately represent some particular aspect of sheep production. There should be representation but designating them specifically could lead to difficulty. The non-national element from an organisational point of view might cause a great deal of trouble.
There are, too, omissions. I am sure they are not intentional on the part of Deputy Clinton, but his inclusions rather highlight his omissions. The ICSMA are not mentioned despite the fact that they were represented on the Wool Improvements Committee, from which this document emanated. We have the NAC. It does not seem to merit consideration for membership either. There may be other bodies but these two come to mind immediately.
Again, the question must be posed as to whether those nominated by particular organisations may not tend to have their allegiance to the organisation rather than to the board. If their allegiance is to the organisation nominating them, then the board would find itself in second place. Where does the allegiance lie? This is one that I do not think we can readily get away from. It is fairly clear at this stage from operations of existing boards that this is a big question and one to which there is no easy answer and which would make me hesitate, regardless of any other consideration, to go with Deputy Clinton, even though he has given a well-reasoned argument for his view. Certainly, this overall question would make me hesitate to agree with him on the composition of this board or comhairle and, indeed, would make me question now and in the future the idea of nomination to such boards in so far as operations under my Department are concerned.
I should like to be able to say that we can accept all of these amendments and any consequential amendments that may follow, but, as I say, the tying down to a specific number would be wrong. It would create difficulties that we cannot foresee at the moment. To tie it inflexibly to a fixed number is in itself wrong. As to the question of designating organisations who will of right nominate persons to represent them, this unfortunately appears to have been the practice in other boards up to now rather than to have somebody selected by an organisation to act in the best interests of the producers concerned, in this case, the sheep producers, on the board and in the interests of the board. This is the big question that I query here and after which I have the biggest question mark in regard to amendment No. 26. To nominate people and to give them this right merely to copperfasten is the idea that Deputy Clinton has. He suggests that by so doing we would ensure their co-operation.
The whole purpose of this Bill is the benefit of the sheep producers of this country. Any and all of the bodies that have been mentioned both by Deputy Clinton and myself have the interests of these producers at heart, some of them to a greater degree than others, no doubt, but if this board or Comhairle is in the interests of these sheep producers, then the interest is common with all of these other organisations and we do not necessarily have to have them as organisations represented by right of nomination on this Comhairle.
The biggest reason I have against it is, as I say, in regard to the question, where does their allegiance ultimately lie? Is it in the functioning of the board in the best interests of the sheep producers or in the interests of the organisation from which they themselves have sprung and by which they have been nominated? If the representatives are not playing the tune that that organisation likes, even from a purely organisational point of view, then their days on that board are numbered; they will be taken off and replaced by somebody with different views.
This is something that we have to be quite careful about. On reflection, Deputy Clinton will probably appreciate that this difficulty is already emerging in other established boards that have been composed in somewhat similar manner to that which he proposes for this Comhairle. These are the reasons why I feel I cannot accept the amendments in the manner in which Deputy Clinton has brought them before the House and which he has argued for in the House.
I can appreciate the Minister's attitude to the amendment. I think I did say initially that there was no magic in the figure 12. I might explain that I sat down to amend this Bill on Thursday evening when we were supposed to have it on the following Tuesday and it did not come. I agree that I did not, perhaps, give it all the care and thought it merited, but nevertheless, off the cuff, I listed all the organisations that I felt had an important contribution to make to this scheme. I certainly would not like to see the Minister tied to the figure 12.
The Minister says there is this great difficulty about people being nominated having allegiance to the body that nominated them rather than to the board. He says that that presents a difficulty for him. I know it does. What I see wrong about the Minister's argument is that he has not told us what is the alternative. As soon as the Minister himself selects the members, and that seems to be the only alternative to nomination, everybody will start howling that they were selected for political reasons and not because of the contribution they can make to the board. That allegation will be howled here and everywhere.
I should like to see confidence in this measure. I agree with the Minister that what is being done here is for the benefit of all concerned. We want to make that seen more vividly. We want the people to understand it. For this reason I should like to see a guarantee of greater producer representation. There is no such guarantee in the Bill. The only thing the Minister ties himself to doing is to give three representatives to the producers and three to the trade. That gives me the impression that that is the sort of balance the Minister has in mind. I think that is not a fair balance. Not only do I think it is not fair but I think it is not good for the legislation. The people who have by far the most important contribution to make to the success of the scheme are the producers. First of all, they will produce the wool and if it is possible to improve quality by breeding or any other means, they will be responsible. When it comes to the shearing of the sheep, the rolling of the fleeces, the presentation of the wool and all the various things that need to be done to get a quality wool on to the market, the producers are all the time involved and are the important people. They are the people who have to be convinced and who have to realise why it is important to do all these things and that it is to their benefit to do them.
For that reason, and that reason only, it is wise to name in advance the organisations, to name the various people that the Minister will put on this board. Otherwise, suspicion will enter in. We do not want to go over it now but we have seen this before and we have seen it not working before. I greatly fear that it will not work again. I know the Minister wants it to work and I want it to work.
There is quite an important job to be done here. There is no alternative. It may, as the Minister says, work out in such a way that you will get this feature that the nominees will feel that they have more allegiance to the body that nominated them than to the board but, in the long run, certainly, they are both the same thing. I would say that in the short term perhaps they might have to take steps in the board that might not be very popular with the producers, let us say, but in the long term it would be of benefit. I can see this sort of thing arising but this can be got over. I do not think it can be got over better by the Minister simply selecting persons who he is satisfied have a contribution to make. I do not think it is a satisfactory arrangement. As we have seen, it has not worked out in the past. If we are going to adopt the same attitude in this legislation, I am afraid it will not work well in this case either.
I have no particular reason for favouring any particular organisation. The Minister says that this difficulty is insurmountable inasmuch as there are quite a number of sheep breeders who are not organised and asks how do you get nominations from them. I should like to remind the Minister that the same difficulty arose in the formulation of the scheme for setting up the board of An Foras Talúntais. There you had a group of various organisations with the right to nominate one, or perhaps two, breeders. I think it has worked out well. It is something along that line I am proposing, that, where you have not the entire group organised, it should be possible to get as near total organisation as possible, and to tell them to get together to nominate somebody. Or where you want to leave it to two or three organisations — take all the breeding societies, for instance — tell them to get together and select two. That is quite a possibility. We have the precedent for it. It has been done in the case of An Foras Talúntais. That is how its membership was formed.
Again, may I take Deputy Clinton up on the latter part of what he says? There is nothing to prevent me in circumstances that might seem suitable saying to any of those organisations: "Give me a man" or "Give me two men". I am not precluded from doing that by the manner in which this Bill is drafted. But what I am saying is that I do not go with the idea that this must be done by legislative right and that they must get it regardless of how they may see their allegiance in the future.
For instance, if a matter of some importance came up — unfortunately, this is emerging elsewhere — something unpopular from a producer's point of view, you have the producers' organisations with the right to nominate their representatives on this council. What else could those nominees do except act in the interests of the organisations which put them there, regardless perhaps of the overall best interests of the board whose aim is to help the sheep-breeders in the long-term overall situation? If a responsible decision has to be taken, the nominee of one or other of the producer organisations, who are there by right, will not necessarily give their allegiance to the interests of the board as a whole to achieve the board's long-term purpose but rather will act on the short-term benefits that may accrue from their action or lack of action on the Comhairle to their own organisations.
This is the sort of thing that must be guarded against rather than catered for. We must get back to the fundamental question. This has to be said over and over again and I say it in all seriousness: far too many of us in recent times tend towards the idea that you elect the Government, put Ministers in charge of Departments and, having done that, the whole process seems to be to give the workings to somebody else to do for you. I must say I do not agree with that. I believe in taking the raps and the credit. But I insist on getting both, not just leaving the credit to those who can act one way when the wind is at their back but who blame somebody else if the wind changes. This right of nomination can have just that sort of outcome. In the last analysis, whether this Comhairle succeeds or not it is my responsibility here; but I do not have to remind Deputies it will be held to be my responsibility if it fails.
Therefore, the composition of the Comhairle is of prime importance to me as a member of the Government doing the job I have to do. I do not believe in shelving that and passing it on to other people merely for the sake of placating people at a particular time if the long-term end-product is not a better Comhairle. Quite honestly, I do not think this right of nomination makes for a better Comhairle. It is not because I want to keep people off the Comhairle I do it. I do it with my eyes open on the basis that we do not seem any longer to have full regard to the fact that the Government are elected by the people to do a job for the people and that I, as a member of that Government, have this particular job to do and have undertaken to do it with the aid of the members of this House. I propose to do it and this is the way I believe it will work best.
Since I as Minister for Agriculture will carry the responsibility for the success or failure of the Comhairle, it is only right that I should have the freedom to have a board of ten, six or 16 if I so wish, that it should not be written in that it should be 12, 11 or 14, that I should be able to choose in any circumstances that might arise, having given it the fullest consideration, the people I regard as capable of doing the best job in the interests of the wool producers. This, I think, is what we should be doing and it is what I am asking the House to do. But that is not in any way to say that I may not, after the wisest counsels have prevailed, go to the various organisations and say to them: "I want one of your body nominated to me so that I can put him on this Comhairle." This may well be done. I would not attempt to say until we have got down to the actual composition of the board, if this measure is enacted by both Houses.
It is for these overall good and grave reasons I feel I cannot go with Deputy Clinton on this matter and accept these amendments. However, I would like it to go out, lest the contrary might be understood to be the case, that my reluctance to go with these amendments should not in any way be taken by any of these organisations as any reflection on them or on their ability to provide suitable people from their membership. But through this Comhairle we will be seeking the co-operation of all of those bodies. It is in their interest and the interests of their members that we and the Comhairle should get that co-operation. They should remember all the time that my main task here, just as the other Ministers have theirs, is to try to help agriculture and the farmers of this country. They should try to get rid of the idea I am over here fighting against the farmers. This is a myth that has been built up. The sooner it is exposed the better, not alone for me, but for the farmers themselves. People have been misled into the belief that you have to have somebody to fight against the Minister for Agriculture instead of helping him to fight his corner with the Government and in the Dáil to get the most for the farmers out of what is going. We find the farmers in some organisations taking it on themselves to fight the Minister as if he were the enemy of the farmers. I hope this is emerging as the myth I know it to be. I would like to go on record as saying it is in fact a myth. Nothing I have said here should add to that belief which has been spread around here recently.
I appreciate the over-all responsibility the Minister carries for the development and welfare of the agricultural industry generally, but I part company with him completely when he says he must reserve the right of direction of all this to himself. We all know we have boards in existence at the moment with the type of autonomy I seek in this amendment. I think even the Minister could not deny that they are doing good work. If he does deny it — and he seems to deny it because of his statements—it is tantamount to saying that the boards in existence at the moment which have this autonomy are not doing very fine work. I disagree with that entirely.
One of the reasons why this attitude has grown up that there must be a group to fight the Minister is that the Minister is not trusting the producers down the line and is not prepared to say: "There, it is your job. Go and do it. I will give you all the facilities to do it. I will give you all the help and all the co-operation I can." That is different from the Minister's attitude: "I will tell you what to do. You must do it this way. It is in your own interest. We should have your co-operation. We demand it. We are out for your good." I do not think he will ever get it that way. I say in all sincerity that that is the wrong approach. You will not get co-operation that way. The Minister should be prepared to repose confidence in bodies of this kind and give them this type of responsibility and authority. I do not think he will get them to be yes-men, men he can direct from the top. That type of bureaucratic control will not work in Ireland. That is my personal view. It applies to this measure, the same as it would apply to any similar measure. You will not get results the way the Minister seeks to get them.
I feel sure the Minister is sincere in believing that he has a responsibility for the farmers, the producers and everyone connected with agriculture, that they should see he has a responsibility to act in such a way for their benefit, and that they should do exactly what he directs from the top. I do not think this will get co-operation. It never will and it is a great pity the Minister cannot see it. Let him by all means not confine himself to 12. Let him have authority and let An Chomhairle Olla have authority. If they see that a particular organisation is working against the best interests of An Chomhairle Olla as a whole, they should have the power to recommend that such people should be dropped. I think there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that you will not get this sort of allegiance to a particular organisation working against the long-term interest and the overall interest of the scheme as a whole. If the Minister rejects this idea and takes it all on his own back, it will never work and he will be killing the scheme before it starts. This would be a great disappointment to me as I see a great need for it.
The first thing that should be put on record is that what we are now proposing to do is something which was open to all the organisations to do for years past. Again, without picking out anyone or reflecting on them, they did not do it. Now that we are proposing to do it, Deputy Clinton's idea is that we should give them statutory rights, although in certain circumstances an organisation might be working in a purely sectional or local interest, or might even be political, rather than in the interest of the over-all wellbeing of the board. That would be the wrong way to start it.
It is also true to say that some of our existing boards which have enjoyed almost complete autonomy are now seen to be breeding dictatorship which Government Ministers are accused of but never indulge in. Members of the House on all sides will agree in their own minds, if not openly, that this is in fact so, and that the perpetuation of that sort of dictatorship without real responsibility to the public which we all have in Opposition or in Government is not a development we should encourage to any greater degree than is necessary.
In regard to the numbers, while I am thinking of something around ten or 11, when Deputy Clinton started to enumerate them himself he found he needed 12, and it may well be that I will be forced up. In any board or group of this nature, I have the greatest reluctance to expand the numbers if it is possible to do the job with fewer members. I do not think a growth in the size of any of these bodies adds to their effectiveness. Rather I take the reverse view. The smaller you keep a group of this nature, the much better work they are likely to do, and they are likely to do it more expeditiously. While I am thinking of around ten, I may have to settle for 12 or 14. I would prefer to have seven or six or even five rather than ten, 12 or 14.
As I said, we are not taking something away from anybody. We are doing a job that could have been done by a collection of organisations or by individual organisations. It is because it has not been done, and it did not appear likely that it would be done, that I am in this House at the moment proposing to do it this way. When we get what I am proposing into operation, if we find at any stage on the advice of the Comhairle or from the observations of others in the House or outside it that there is a better way, and if legislation is needed, I will be the first to come to this House to seek to have a change made if it is seen to be in the interest of the sheep producers. I have no hesitation in saying that.
What we are proposing may not be the ultimate and this type of organisation may not be the best, but at the moment, in my estimation, it is the best, and if we find that we need a change, I will certainly come back to the House and say: "Right; we want to make a change." I can give that undertaking to the House.
The Minister has responsibility in this matter, but it is overall responsibility. He is responsible to supplement the efforts of the people concerned but not to supplant them. That is what the Minister is setting out to do. He says you cannot set up a board and give it this type of autonomy without having the sort of undesirable dictatorship which the Minister says exists in certain boards at the moment. I am not aware of those boards where this undesirable dictatorship exists. We have boards doing an excellent job. They need independence. It appears to me that if they offend against the ideas of some people, they are described as dictators simply because they feel it is necessary to do something in order to accomplish the work they were set up to do.
It seems that the Minister is going to insist on this. He will again handpick all these people. He says it is quite on the cards that he will say to one organisation: "Give me a man; give me a representative." If the Minister selects these people, how can he claim that because he selects them, he will have no trouble, that they will have no allegiance and no mind of their own, and that their only interest will be the board for which he selects them? You will always have people who will feel they have an allegiance to a certain group and must take a certain stand when matters concerning the organisation as a whole come up for discussion. If an organisation nominates its own person, at least that person will be putting forward the view of the organisation. Otherwise, he will be representing no one but himself in the last analysis. It is important to have a representative board.
I do not think the Minister should tie his hand to the 12 I mentioned. I said there was nothing magic about 12. The Minister speaks of flexibility and says the number could be increased to 14. If the body composed of those various interests can all sit down together and say, for instance, that a certain individual is acting against the better interests of the organisation and recommend to the Minister that he be dropped, surely that obviates any possibility of such board going off the rails and wrecking the organisation?
The best way to wreck the organisation is to say, at the start, something like this: "I am the Minister. I have the responsibility. I have to do this job for the farmers." The Minister has over-all organising responsibility but he should help the people to help themselves rather than direct every move they make. His attitude should not be: "This must be done in this way." With such an attitude, no organisation will be satisfactory and no scheme will be satisfactory.
This is not just my idea. This arises, almost in its entirety, from a report by people chosen for their knowledge and for their valuable experience. They reported to a degree that brought about this legislation. It is being rather too detailed or probably naïve for Deputy Clinton to say that this is not good enough, that, as Minister for Agriculture, I have overall responsibility and that I should merely make available the means and allow the others to do the job. This is a very important tail-end of the job — to try to do a better job. We do not propose to tell people how many sheep they could keep and how and where they should keep them. We are not directing or commanding the people. We are merely filling a gap that has been known to the producers for many long years. We are trying to help to fill that gap to help those producers to get a better return from their sheep and their wool.
If a Minister selects a person on the basis of advice and because of that person's knowledge, experience and work on a board such as this — incidentally, these members will not be paid, as distinct from members on some boards — is it right to say that such person will not have a mind of his own whereas a person would have a mind of his own if he were selected by a popular ballot of the members of an organisation of varied interests — not necessarily sheep — and sent there by right of law to act for them? Which of the two types of selection is the more likely to produce a free agent and a person more likely to give of his best knowledge and advice? Taking the one with the other, the Minister's selection and the manner of that selection will produce a far freer agent than the man who is selected and sent in with the tag of the organisation he represents, and so on. Undoubtedly, the interplay of the organisation's politics will have a bearing on the actions of such a person from time to time.
If the Minister makes the selection, the persons do not depend on any organisation for being there. Such persons are not paid by the Minister or the Government to attend and are selected for their work and knowledge. Naturally, such persons will be free, as they will be told, to exercise that freedom and to utilise the collective knowledge of all of them to the greatest advantage in pursuing and helping the progress of the sheep breeders, feeders and producers of this country. I say that the people whom any Minister selects in these circumstances are far freer agents than is likely, to be the case if they are nominated, selected and backed by any organisation.
It is as well to mention that undoubtedly there will be Fianna Fáil people on this Comhairle. Why should there not be?
There is no doubt about it.
I am not necessarily referring to Deputy Clinton when I say it is very silly and shortsighted to hold that because a person on a board is known to support Fianna Fáil, it follows that he is immediately wrong and should not be there. It is just as crazy to say that, because a person is a Fine Gael supporter, he should not be a member on a board.
People who participate in politics, no matter what Party they may support, are more likely to be interested in the national work than people who try to get the best of both worlds by paying a few bob to Fine Gael this week and a few bob to Fianna Fáil next week—and they will not leave out Labour, either. I much prefer people who say they support Fine Gael, Labour or Fianna Fáil because undoubtedly such people take an interest in the running of their country. No matter what political group they may come from, they are likely to be the most interested and to be willing to give of their time to the greatest degree in the national interest — and therefore to make the best board members. I shall not have 11 or 12 neutrals. In any case I have no regard for neutrals — particularly these non-political people we hear so much of these days.
I am not questioning the Minister's bona fides or the bona fides of any particular Minister in relation to this board, but, taking the matter from the point of view that a board is now being established which is intended to operate for some time to come in circumstances which neither the Minister nor any member of this House can know may come into being or into existence, we are establishing machinery here according to the Bill the Minister introduced which not only will give the Minister, and the Minister alone, the power of appointment but will give the Minister power to remove, and power to remove without any explanation, good, bad or indifferent.
I do not question the bona fides of the Minister. I do not doubt for a moment that he wants the kind of board of which he has spoken, that he wants people of independent mind who will be interested in the matter and who will be prepared to talk out. I think he is right in that. However, the Minister does not know how long he will be Minister. He does not know who will be Minister some time in the future when this board is in existence and when these powers are there. Whatever the desires of the Minister may be, there might be a different approach from the point of view of the people appointed, if they find themselves in a position where first, the only person who can appoint is the Minister and secondly, the Minister can remove them from office simply because he decides to do so without explanation or reason for any whim of his own. So long as the dual powers remain with the Minister, the sole power of appointment and unfettered power of removal, it would, to my mind, be easy for a Minister in the future to have a board which would be completely acquiescent and quiescent and completely subject to whatever views he might wish to have prevail upon them.
Deputy Clinton's amendment No. 26, as he has explained, is designed not to weaken the board in any way but to provide that interested bodies, parties or associations will have the right to nominate to the board. The appointment will still be the appointment of the Minister but if the Minister wants to get a board which, in addition to being an active and interested board, interested in the problems with which it is to deal, is also to be representative of the sections of the community concerned with these problems, then it seems that the way to get that kind of board is the way Deputy Clinton has suggested in his amendment.
Does the Minister not see that if he handpicks individuals, they are only interested in expressing a personal view and that they are not speaking for any large group? They are just individuals, perhaps levelheaded ones and perhaps people who have a good deal of personal knowledge, but it is important to satisfy the largest possible number in this kind of thing, if we are to get their co-operation. You will not get their interest by simply telling them what is to be done. They or their organisation must feel that they are doing it themselves and you must give them all the assistance and co-operation that is necessary to get the whole scheme working like this.
The Minister's idea is that there should be a balance of half and half. This is indicated in his section 12 — not less than three of the trade and not less than three producers. I should like to hear what he has to say about this. Does he think this is fair to the producers? If he sets up a board on the lines indicated in amendment No. 26, he is bound to get a balanced board. It is not so varied in its composition that you can get any one organisation that can have the effect he anticipates, that they can upset the long-term interest of the board which is really to get a better price for wool. both for individuals and for the country, and perhaps, in addition, to get more of the wool produced here manufactured here. To get a better price is the main aim, and I do not think that the aims of such a body can be upset if you have a board on the lines I indicated with, perhaps, a couple of more in addition, as the Minister said. I do not think you can get any such thing as one group or organisation upsetting it in the way the Minister anticipates.
The Minister should know that even though he carefully handpicks these people, he will have trouble with some of them. A certain amount of trouble is inevitable. I believe that in spite of what the Minister has said, we have boards organised on these lines in the country at present. Everything they do may not please the Minister. No board working as it should work will please everybody, but, on the whole, tribute should be paid to them. They are doing an excellent job. It is wrong to say that a dictatorship is being set up in these boards simply because they are composed along the general lines we are advocating in this amendment.
As I said, I am disappointed because this is a continuation of an attitude that I do not believe will ever succeed with our producers, an attitude of imposing policy from the top. You must not demand allegiance or that these people shall serve but you can ask them to help themselves. That is one of the reasons why, as the Minister complains, nothing was done through the years where there was a job to be done. All these people mentioned now did not come in and do it. They did not get together. It is a reflection on the leadership that existed here through the years that it has taken so long for the person with the responsibility, the Minister for Agriculture, to induce them to come together, to give them all the facilities to come together and do this important job for themselves.
We could talk about this for the rest of the week and I doubt if we would be any closer to agreement than we are now. I still hope that Deputy Clinton, if he does not come to agree with me, will come to appreciate my outlook on this matter. As Minister for Agriculture, I wish to get, in my estimation, the best Comhairle available for this job.
I accept that.
Having considered the matter very fully, I believe this is the best way to set about getting the best board to do the best job. I can assure the House that I am not blind to the possibility that by selecting men myself, I am going to get yes-men. I do not want them. They are of no use to me if they are yes-men. I hope that these people will be brought together in order to deal with the problems which we foresee they will meet and problems that will have to be overcome, and ten or 12 yes-men agreeing with the Minister for Agriculture or somebody else, obviously is not the answer and would not provide any answers to the problems which they are being appointed to solve.
I want it to be clearly understood that it is not yes-men I want. I want people who, because of their knowledge and experience, are likely to be useful and who are prepared to give time without being paid for it to tackle the job in its various aspects in a particularly detailed way, whether at the production end, the local buying and grading end and the utilisation of wool for home manufacture—this could be an aspect of it — and those who have to go out and find markets outside for our wool. These are the people I must seek and get to operate as free people, with freedom to do what they collectively think is the best thing.
The idea that if they do not do what I like them to do, I will drop them and put on somebody else is completely out. If I or any Minister had to drop one or two or three of these people, we would do so for only one reason— unless we were daft — and that would be because by their actions or lack of action, attendance or performance, they were not contributing to the over-all good of this particular business. If they were contributing, a Minister would be daft to drop them because they would be doing their job in the best way possible, and that is the whole purpose of setting up this body and asking the House to give it legislative authority. To drop people because you do not like them or for some other reason is not "on". If they are doing their job, they stay, and if they are not, they are entitled to be dropped. This is something you could not do if they were nominated people because you would be offending not only the people who might be dropped but the whole organisation. It could be taken as a personal affront by every member of the organisation that their man was dropped, and, of course, it would not be because he was no good—that would never be admitted. It would be because his politics were wrong; the Minister does not like them, and so he knocks this fellow and disrupts the whole organisation.
Is that not what the Minister did with the NFA?
I thought the Deputy was gone, because his front bench colleagues were howling yesterday about another little man, and I had to interrupt and say: "Do not forget Stevie", and that stopped them. They knew Stevie better than the man they were naming yesterday.
What did the Minister do with the NFA? Let him tell us about that.
The Deputy and I will have a talk on some other date. He is interrupting Deputy Clinton and myself, and with all due respect, this will never do, because we are having a serious conversation. There is not a great deal more that can be said to resolve the difference of opinion on this matter, and I do not propose to prolong it by dragging Deputy Coughlan into it at this stage.
It is the easiest thing in the world to play party politics on this. I do not want to start the old battle all over again, but I did ask the Minister to comment on the sort of balance that was indicated in the set-up he suggests here and to express a view on it. He has not done that.
Which balance?
This three-three balance, three to the trade and three to the producer. If this is not the sort of balance that appeals to the Minister, why does he safeguard his position by stipulating not less than three of the trade and not less than three of the producers? Is it because a certain section of the group that produced this wool report made this sort of suggestion about which there was not general agreement that the Minister is adhering to it? I think the Minister will agree that the representation in the group that produced the report was pretty well lopsided in favour of the trade. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about the balance or what really are his ideas in relation to the composition of this board. It is a mistake to keep it a secret prior to bringing in the legislation. That is the best way not to get co-operation and not to get confidence in the measure. The Minister should declare himself now and say what he is going to do. I am sure he has his own mind made up as to where he is going to get the people who will form this board, because this is a piece of legislation which has been contemplated for some time and, indeed, is long overdue.
I am sorry if I seem to have avoided that; it certainly was not intentional. The Bill says not less than three of each. It does not mean that it will be three of each. It could be five of one and three of the other, but there will not be fewer than three of either. As regards having my mind made up, quite candidly, I have not my mind made up about the detailed representation or the groupings that may be assigned to this body. This will come, if and when we get this measure through the Dáil and the Seanad. Possibly as time goes on, as we sit here, we will be thinking more and more of it, but until we get a little further, there would be little point in being specific or in attempting to be specific, because we are only starting the Committee Stage and there is a fairly long way to go, judging by the number of amendments I see here.
A short way to go, if the Minister is any way generous about them.
If I gave the Deputy all the amendments he has here, then he should be here and I should be over there. However, there is the problem that the people did not agree to that, so I am in a fix in that regard. I do not like going against the voice of the electorate in matters as grave as this. I have not my mind made up. I have not a pre-selected team, if that is what the Deputy is wondering. In the Bill it is three-three. That is put in to give an assurance to the House that there will not be fewer than three traders and three producers. However, this does not imply that the balance will be three-three, four-three or five-five. The assurance that there will not be fewer than three is put in the Bill for the very reason the Deputy has been mentioning, that we require the co-operation of both sides. Much good it would be to get it from the producers if we did not get it from the traders on whom we must rely to continue to expand and to give us the best of their knowledge in order to benefit broad trading interests as well as sectional interests. Likewise, we must show that the producers are entitled to minimum representation; they may get more. The final composition of this Comhairle remains to be seen. Only time will show whether it is to be three-three, four-three or four-four: I cannot say.
Does the Minister not envisage the desirability or the possibility of having a great degree of cooperative selling of wool in the future? In that case you would have the situation where the producers and the sellers would be one and the same interest. Whereas the Minister says it is no use having the co-operation of the producers if you have not got the co-operation of the trade on whom we are dependent to sell this wool, I think the traders are very much dependent on the producers. They would have no trade, were it not for the fact that this wool was produced and produced in such a way that the traders could sell it. There is far greater importance attached to the producer than to the trader, and it is disappointing that the Minister seems to persist in this attitude that we must have this. He does not say exactly that, but he says it is very important that this sort of balance should be in existence. I do not intend to stand up again, because there is only the one thing to do.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
The Deputy is playing hide and seek since 6 o'clock.
I am well aware of the Minister's attitude, because I have experience of it over the years. If an amendment is proposed from any side of the House except his own, it has to be turned down as a matter of principle. In my own fairly long experience of the Minister, I have not known him to accept an amendment.
Because they are not sensible ones. If they were, he would accept them.
He believes in his heart that inflexibility denotes strength. You must be inflexible with the Opposition; you must be inflexible with the farmers.
What farmers is the Deputy talking about?
The farmers of Ireland.
The farmers of County Limerick.
It is quite obvious that it is a waste of time putting forward amendments here because the Minister does not give them serious consideration. I was very anxious that this legislation, which is a very desirable piece of legislation, should get generous and serious thought from the Minister but it is not getting it, and he is obviously determined that he is not going to deal with any idea from any source other than himself or his Department.
The Minister does not recognise that the producers are the most important people and that they represent the larger number in this whole business. If we had not got them, we would not have a wool trade. It is the producers who get the worst end of everything. That is why they should have more representation than the people in the trade.
The Minister said that if the people were nominated by the various societies not only would it offend the individual but the society, if one were dropped. Surely it is in the interest of the society and the producer that they pick the best men? If they do not, then the society are not acting in the interest of the people they are supposed to represent. If you get to that situation, you might as well give up. Deputy Geoghegan from Connemara may like to sit behind the Minister and interrupt, but he should remember that there are far more producers in Connemara than wool buyers. I am all in favour of giving people in the trade a fair deal but let us be fair to the producers.
Has the Minister said that he will not?
(Interruptions.)
A bit of chivalry, please. It would not come amiss.
I would like to assure Deputy Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins that the provision of not less than three for these two groups does indicate that they must be equal and what is put in therefore is to assure both of these — both are important and the question of which is of the greater importance is not at issue — that there would be not less than three for either of them. How many there will be along with the three is something about which I have no preconceived idea. We want to keep it in this way for the moment. In order to disabuse anyone who has the feeling that we are writing down the producers, I should point out that we would not be here except for the producers. This whole exercise is in the interests of the producers. We should keep in mind that this does not preclude either from getting more.
I understood the Minister to argue earlier, and to a great extent I agreed with him on this, that generally speaking, the smaller the committee the better. He is inclined to cavil at the suggestion contained in Deputy Clinton's amendment that the number might be 12 rather than 11, an increase of one. As I recall it, he argued that the smaller your committee the better and if you could have five, six or seven rather than ten, 11 or 12, all to the good. Am I misrepresenting the Minister's mind on this? If I am not, the position seems to me to be that the Minister, having a preference for a small committee is tied under the Bill as proposed to a committee of seven, a chairman and six ordinary members, at least three of whom will represent or be drawn from the trade and three from the producers. If the Minister's inclination is against a bigger committee, does it not seem reasonable for the House to assume that the logical outcome is that if you are to have a committee of seven, a chairman, and six others, the others are going to be divided equally as per the Schedule here, as between the trade and the producers.
The argument advanced here, which would be catered for in the amendment, is that greater representation should be given to the producers. Without prejudice to that, and I think it is a sensible amendment, I appreciate the Minister's point of view with regard to the size of committees. I have heard it said, and the Minister might be attracted to this point of view, that the ideal committee is a committee of two, with one absentee.
No, I have not got that far yet.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
No.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 4, together with amendments Nos. 5, 6, 8, 10, 13 and 14 which are consequential on it, provide for the transfer from the Minister to An Chomhairle of functions regarding registration and licensing. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 provide for the transfer from the Minister to An Chomhairle of functions regarding the making of regulations and the appointment of staff. Amendment No. 19 and No. 22, which is consequential on it, provide for the giving of powers of entry, inspection and examination, etc., to officers of An Chomhairle and appears to be consequential on the proposals for the transfer of functions. Is it agreed to take these together?
I would much prefer if they were taken separately. We deal with the business much more directly and expeditiously if we do this. This really deals with the transfer of various functions from the Minister to An Chomhairle. Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10, and perhaps Nos. 13 and 14, deal with the transfer of various functions from the Minister to An Chomhairle and I submit that while the Minister might not be prepared to transfer all of these functions, he might be prepared to transfer some of them. Therefore, I suggest that this would not be the best way to take them.
Whether or not the Minister and the House would be disposed to accept some of these rather than all of them a discussion could be held on all of them, which would be a facility, and at the same time, a separate decision could be taken on each of them. This is normal procedure. It would be a facility if we discussed them together but that will not prevent the House from deciding on them individually.
I appreciate that we can have separate votes, but frankly I feel it would be beyond me to range over six or eight amendments which applied to various sections all over the Bill. It would be a wrong way to do it. I do not know to what extent I am entitled to insist on this.
Might I suggest that it would be impossible to deal with them in isolation, without wondering about all the others? That is why taking them together would, I think, facilitate debate while, at the same time, in no way taking from any individual decisions.
The position is that we must avoid duplication of debate.
Why?
Where amendments are consequential, it would be very difficult to avoid repetition if the amendments are discussed separately.
I do not want to disagree with the Chair, but I think it is wrong to describe these amendments as consequential. They are separate amendments. The functions it is proposed to transfer are all different and separate functions. It will present no difficulty to me to deal with them separately and without duplication. I do not know to what extent I have a right to insist on this, but, as far as the right goes, I want to insist.
Possibly the Deputy is overlooking the fact that the very first phrase in the amendment reads:
An Chomhairle shall have the following functions, namely ...
That phrase is to be read before all the others and it must preface any that are retained, if any are retained.
It comes first. That is the reason it is here.
The view of the Chair is that Nos. 5, 6, 8, 10, 13 and 14 are consequential.
But let No. 4 stand on its own.
The Deputy can have a separate decision on No. 4.
I am sorry; I do not agree with what the Chair recommends.
May I put this to the Chair? I do not think amendment No. 5 is necessarily consequential on No. 4. Amendment No. 4 proposes particular functions, while amendment No. 5 is for the purpose of inserting an amendment into section 4, which could stand on its own, regardless of what happens to amendment No. 4, and which could, I think, relevantly be discussed on its own without necessarily having duplication.
The Chair's understanding is that amendments Nos. 5, 6, 8, 10, 13 and 14 are consequential on amendment No. 4. If we are to avoid duplication, these amendments must be discussed together.
I reluctantly agree. I find it difficult enough to follow the Bill and the amendments, but, taking them all together, baffles me. I defer to the Chair's decision.
The Chair is grateful to the Deputy.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 4:
Before section 3 to insert a new section as follows: —
"An Chomhairle shall have the following functions, namely:
(a) to fix grades, price increases relating to quality and price reductions relating to defects, to be used, paid or deducted in respect of the purchase of wool from producers;
(b) to fix standards to be applied in relation to the registration of registered buyers;
(c) after consultation with the Minister, to fix a code of practice to be observed by wool exporters;
(d) to provide or secure the provision of courses for the training of persons in the grading of wool;
(e) to consider, devise or implement methods to increase exports of wool;
(f) to consider methods of securing the maximum use of home produced wool by manufacturers in the State; and
(g) to carry out the functions in sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of this Act."
This amendment relates to section 13 in which the functions of An Chomhairle are set out and must, therefore, be considered in conjunction with it. Section 13 provides:
An Chomhairle shall have the following functions, namely:
(a) to advise the Minister in relation to the fixing of grades, price increases relating to quality and price reductions relating to defects, to be used, paid or deducted in respect of the purchase of wool from producers;
(b) to advise the Minister in relation to the fixing of standards to be applied in relation to the registration of registered buyers;
What we seek to do is to put An Chomhairle in the position of not just advising the Minister about all these things but actually going out and doing these things. We seek to give them the responsibility of deciding not only what the standards and the practices should be but actually carrying these into effect with all the necessary power and responsibility. It is a great mistake to have all this roundabout unnecessary traffic. If we set up a body like An Chomhairle, without giving that body power and responsibility, how can we hope that the body will function? If they have to put up their hands and say: "Please, teacher" before they do anything, that will not be a good thing.
Is there any reason why An Chomhairle should not have the responsibility of fixing grades, deciding price increases relating to quality and price reductions relating to defects? Surely they must be in a position, if they have any function at all, to make this sort of simple decision? If they are responsible for the scheme, they are the people who will know because it is from them the Minister will get advice; if they do not know their job, they should not be part of the membership of An Chomhairle. If they are the people who know their job, why not then and there give them the authority to do these things? Why should they have to come back to the Minister and ask if they may do them? I cannot understand the mentality behind this.
Again, they are to advise the Minister in relation to the fixing of standards to be applied in relation to the registration of registered buyers. Does the attitude of the Minister imply that he is not prepared to accept their advice? Why are they in existence? If the Minister is prepared to accept their advice, why not let them carry that advice into effect without asking the Minister if they may do it?
The next function is:
(c) after consultation with the Minister, to fix a code of practice to be observed by wool exporters;
This is a pretty intricate field and we do not want to give them sole responsibility in this. We will let the Minister come in because this is a matter that could require consultation with the Minister. It is international and here the Minister's advice would be extremely important. They can still consult with the Minister, but give them the power to do things. Subsections (a) and (b) are the particular places in which I think it is all wrong for the Minister just to expect these to be a "Yes" body, to provide him with all the advice but to do nothing themselves unless he comes down and directs them to do something.
Amendment No. 5 deals with section 4 which provides for the prohibition of unlicensed business of exporting wool. Surely this body, if it is sufficiently qualified to advise the Minister on everything that has to be done for the improvement and development of the wool trade, are the best people to decide as to whether certain people should or should not be allowed to export wool.
Section 6 deals with the application for and conditions of registration. Subsection (1) sets out:
(1) On the application, in such form and containing such particulars as the Minister may direct, by or on behalf of a person who proposes to carry on the business of a buyer of wool the Minister may, at his discretion, register the person in the register as a registered buyer.
Surely, the only people in a position to have discretion about this matter are the people dealing with the trade from production to exportation and that is An Chomhairle Olla? It is totally wrong to take the discretion away from the body that is qualified to advise the Minister in the exercise of his discretion? That is the most foolish procedure imaginable.
Section 7 deals with the grant of licences for carrying on the business of exporting wool.
Section 9 deals with the cancellation, revocation, suspension and restoration of registrations or licences. The Minister has no direct dealings with the people in the wool business, either in production or marketing. The organisation that has direct contact, that knows what is happening and on whom the Minister depends for advice should be free to decide whether or not there should be cancellation, revocation, suspension and restoration of registrations or licences. If this is done by the political head of a Department, everybody will be in a position to say that the Minister did not like the colour of a man's eyes and withdrew his registration; that, politically, a man is not right and, therefore, should not be registered as a buyer, that it would be a good thing to get him out of the way and get in another man because many clients will be coming and going that he will be able to influence in one way or another. I am anxious to get out of the Bill this question of leaving the legislation open to this type of suspicion. As long as it is open to this type of suspicion, I do not think there will be co-operation or that you will get a responsible body of men to join this organisation if they are merely to be a group that will do only what the Minister says should be done and if all the power and responsibility is reposed in the Minister.
Section 5 deals with the keeping of a register. Surely it is not the Minister who will keep the register? The obvious body to keep a register is the body that is in touch with the people, that knows the people, that knows with whom it is dealing.
I do not know how the Parliamentary Secretary will be in a position to argue in favour of the retention of all these powers and responsibilities by the Minister considering that the Minister is dependent on this body at every stage to advise him. If he does not accept their advice, he has no confidence in them and that should not be so. If he accepts their advice, why not allow them to go ahead and do what they advise? That would be the sensible thing to do if we want a business organisation. Otherwise, we will have all the cumbersome procedure and the ties and restrictions attached wherever there is a tie-up with the Civil Service. Business people can do their business directly. That is the big advantage. They do not have to go around in circles. They can make their decisions on the spot. If they have to ask the Minister's permission, he may give it directly but, if he is busy, he may not do so. If there is a by-election in progress, he may not give it for a month. This is the kind of procedure we want to get out of the Bill.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will show good sense in this matter. I know he is interested in this legislation. He made a very good speech here on its importance. We are trying to improve the Bill. If it is suggested by persons on the Government benches that we have nothing to contribute and that any proposal we make will not be accepted, that shows a great weakness in the Government.
The importance of amendment No. 4 lies in relation to the principle in sections 3 and 4 of the Bill. The set-up under the Bill as introduced by the Minister — and in saying this I am not doubting the bona fides of the Minister or of the Department — and the entire structure of the Bill is to concentrate into the hands of the political head of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries the power to say whether or not a person will be allowed to earn his livelihood as an exporter of wool or as a buyer of wool. No matter how well administered legislation of this sort may be, I do not think it will be accepted by the people generally, any more than the same type of proposition was accepted by the people in relation to the Marts Bill that there should be concentrated in the hands of the political head of a Department power to grant or refuse permissions, licences, applications to register and so on, the granting or refusal of which may in fact be vital to the livelihood of those concerned.
We have in section 3 of the Bill the provision that:
If, after the day mentioned in section 5 (4), any person,
(a) carries on the business of a buyer of wool and is not registered in the register, or
(b) uses as his place of such business any premises other than those in relation to which the person is registered in the register,
the person shall be guilty of an offence.
Therefore, in respect of the business of a buyer of wool, the position is to be, if this legislation is passed unaltered, that an offence will be committed unless that person is registered.
Then we go down to section 5 to see the establishment of the register and section 6 contains the provisions regarding the application of the conditions of registration. Subsection (1) of section 6 provides that:
On the application, in such form and containing such particulars as the Minister may direct, by or on behalf of a person who proposes to carry on the business of a buyer of wool the Minister may, at his discretion, register the person in the register as a registered buyer.
Here we have this concentration of power, which is contained in subsection (1) of section 6, in the hands of the Minister, that the Minister and the Minister alone may at his discretion decide whether or not a person who applies for registration as a buyer of wool in the register established under section 5 may be registered. It is already provided in section 3 that if a person carries on the business of a buyer of wool without registration, the registration depending on the discretion of the Minister, he will be guilty of an offence.
The first major point that this amendment of Deputy Clinton deals with — I am talking now about paragraph (g) — is in relation to this question of the buying of wool and the concentration of that power in the hands of the Minister. Deputy Clinton is not suggesting in his amendment that this should be a free for all. He is not suggesting it is not right to regulate this matter and to regulate it in the manner suggested in the Bill by the establishment of a register and by laying down minimum requirements which must be met before a person can become registered. What he is suggesting is that instead of the power being concentrated in the hands of the Minister, it should be dispersed and vested in the board which is also being established under this Bill. Therefore, under the amendment the responsibility is being removed from the Minister and being vested in the board which is directly concerned with this whole wool and wool marketing business. I think that is a reasonable suggestion.
The next matter which to me seems to be of fundamental importance relates to the question of the exporting of wool, the business of the exporter of wool. Here we have the same general structure in the Bill. Whether or not a person is to get a licence under the Bill to carry on the business of exporter of wool again is to be dependent entirely on the Minister. Again, the suggestion contained in the amendment is that instead of leaving that responsibility on the Minister, instead of concentrating that particular power in the hands of the Minister, it again should be dispersed and should be vested in this board which should be and, I am sure, would be, concerned to deal with the wool business in the best interests of the producer and the trade.
Apart from those particular points, the earlier paragraphs of the amendment from (a) to (f) again by and large simply represent a transfer from the Minister to the board of functions which the Minister himself has proposed in the Bill should be the function of the board. Anyway, with the exception in some of them that Deputy Clinton has explained — that instead of enabling the board to act purely in an advisory capacity, Deputy Clinton suggests that they should have authority and discretion to implement their own decisions and not merely to advise the Minister — with the exception of endeavouring to give this type of authority to the board, there is no objection, there is no collision, so to speak, between Deputy Clinton and the Minister with regard to the functions proposed to be performed by the board. In section 13 the Minister takes the view that the board should be merely advisory, that it should merely have the right to advise the Minister in regard to (a) the fixing of grades and price increases and (b) the fixing of standards. Deputy Clinton suggests in relation to those two matters that instead of merely giving advice, the board should have direct authority to fix grades and to fix standards.
To my mind — and I think the Minister may find that this is also reflected in the minds of others — the vital importance of this amendment and the vital distinction between the Minister's position, on the one hand, and Deputy Clinton's position, on the other lies in the application of this amendment to sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 and, by reason of the application of the amendment to sections 5 and 6, it brings its application also to bear on section 3 of the Bill, which is the section which provides that after a particular date, unless a person is a registered wool buyer, he cannot act as a wool buyer without committing an offence.
The Minister assures us that the members selected for this board would be men who knew their job, men who were to a great extent dedicated and who would have the interests of both the producers and the trade at heart. If so, why does he not let them make decisions? I see one grave danger in what the Minister is suggesting. We could arrive at the situation in this whole wool business which we have in regard to planning permission, where the final say about everything would be with the Minister, with, whether true or false, charges of corruption and bribery over every decision taken. The Minister assures us he will have a board of dedicated men, men of integrity, men who know the wool trade backwards. It seems to me to be quite senseless for him to take the decision upon himself. These men know the wool trade. Every Minister for Agriculture will not know the wool trade. Indeed, some of them do not know a sheep from a donkey, but that is neither here nor there. The Minister should leave these decisions to the board.
The Minister assures us that it cannot be said that the members of the board are picked for their political affiliations, but it will be said. If every decision is left to the Minister and someone is refused registration, it will be said he was the wrong political colour, or did not subscribe to Taca. This will be said, and that is the danger. These things will go to the Minister and will rest on the Minister's desk until he has time to clear them. This is cumbersome and slow. The farmers are treated badly enough, without leaving these things sitting in the Department of Agriculture until the Minister gets around to them. I cannot see the point in the Minister's insistence that he should have all the power vested in him. Deputy Clinton's amendment is reasonable and should be considered.
May I say at the outset that I think Deputy Clinton is trying to pull the wool over my eyes? In effect, to accept Deputy Clinton's amendment would be to set up An Chomhairle Olla as the registration and licensing authority instead of the Minister. An Chomhairle will be acting in an advisory capacity. The Wool Commission and the Improvements Committee saw merit in the fact that the Department should supervise the grading of wool and that the staff should be supervised by the Department, and the Bill met them by being so drafted.
Kites were flown here. Deputy Clinton by subtle innuendo moved around the Marts Bill but never mentioned it. We all remember the terrible tragedies and horrors and nightmares which were mentioned here about 12 months ago in the discussion on the Marts Bill. It was said that it would work to the detriment of all and sundry in the livestock trade. We have seen it in operation and in no case has there been a suggestion of a license being refused for political reasons. In fact, it has worked in reverse. It has worked to rationalise the marts industry.
The Minister's intention in this Bill is to rationalise the wool industry and improve the lot of the producer, the trader and the purchaser. We must have one standard of wool. It must be the best, and by working in some slipshod fashion, we certainly will not have that. I see no merit in allowing this responsibility to move from the Minister. In other industries, such as the dairy industry and the bacon curing industry, he has exactly the same powers as are sought here. Going back to the earliest days of the State, Ministers for Agriculture have found it incumbent on them——
The condition of the bacon industry does not reflect any credit on him.
——to safeguard the best interests of the agricultural community. If the Minister were to allow control over An Chomhairle Olla to go out of his hands completely, as is suggested by Deputy Clinton——
It is not.
——he might find the advantages to be gained by An Chomhairle, as proposed to be constituted by the Minister, at variance with his own personal wishes for the betterment of the entire farming community. I do not think that if the Minister retains powers which have been customarily retained by the Minister for Agriculture and other Ministers, it will make one whit of difference to the successful operation of An Chomhairle Olla.
Grading standards will have to be fixed. The Minister will take the advice of An Chomhairle. They will be acting in an advisory capacity. As regards registration, I have no fears on that point. Any Government would be ill-advised to set out deliberately to put people out of business. As in the Marts Bill, there will be a time factor. People who are already engaged in the business of wool buying will be allowed to continue, and if their premises are unsuitable at the moment, they will be given ample time to make them suitable and acceptable for the purposes of registration.
We cannot accept Deputy Clinton's amendment on general grounds. This amendment could bring about a position in which the Minister could be prevented from carrying out his responsibility for the welfare of the agricultural community. If he allowed statutory powers to go out of his control, he might find himself at variance with people who were not working in the best national interests. Surely everyone must appreciate that this is in the national interest of the wool industry, and not a sectional interest on behalf of anyone? It could happen in the years ahead that someone serving on An Chomhairle Olla might for one of a number of reasons be inclined to put forward his own personal interests. It is the function of any Minister, and particularly the Minister for Agriculture, to protect the agricultural community. By retaining these powers, he is reserving to himself the equipment and armament to do so.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary appreciate that the Minister has decided on an earlier amendment to retain the right to handpick the entire membership of this board? Now we have the Parliamentary Secretary expressing the fear that a board handpicked by the Minister will let him down and go off the rails.
The Minister explained why he would not accept nominations.
The Parliamentary Secretary can get in on this again. What I am saying is that the Minister has insisted on retaining the right and power to select this board. He selects them because of the confidence he feels in them. Having selected them, he has no confidence in them any longer. That is the end of the confidence because he is not prepared to give them any responsibility or power. I think it is deplorable to make the type of suggestion we heard the Parliamentary Secretary make about people handpicked by the Minister.
One of these amendments relates to section 6. We read:
the Minister shall be satisfied that the premises together with any plant or machinery therein to be used by the person for the weighing, grading or storage of wool are suitable for each of those purposes having regard to the maximum quantity of wool likely to be handled in the premises at any time.
Surely the only people who will have the responsibility of looking at these premises and advising the Minister in regard to them, and the machinery there, are the members of the board. What is the position if they have not sufficient experience to know whether or not it is good enough to qualify?
The Parliamentary Secretary is making a bottomless argument. Consider the following subparagraph:
the said premises, plant and machinery comply with the requirements of any regulations made under this Act and applicable thereto.
The Minister has no intimate touch with these things. He cannot accept the advice of this board unless he has confidence in it. If he has confidence in it, he should repose in it a certain amount of responsibility and authority. It is bound to be a board of yes-men. I believe that, from the word "go", it is doomed to failure.
The Parliamentary Secretary indicated that there will be divided responsibility for the wool trade in this country from now on; that the Department will be responsible for the employment and supervision of the staff, that the board will have other responsibilities and that the Minister himself will have other responsibilities. What is everybody's job is nobody's job. We shall find ourselves back in square one.
I had hoped this would be a good measure which would assist our wool trade. I fear it will be a fiasco because of this divided authority and divided responsibility. If anything goes wrong, one will blame the other but it cannot be pinned on any particular group. The Minister insists on handpicking them. Having said he wants to be responsible for the people he handpicks, why does he not throw it open to them and say: "Do the job; you know better than I do in this matter"? I should be big enough to say it in this particular instance. The Minister should say to them: "Go ahead. You know the improvements which are needed. I shall give you all facilities to make investigations into any matter you are doubtful about. Set up the organisation and carry it through and do not come back to me asking ` Can we have your advice on this point?' " Can the Parliamentary Secretary not see for himself that no case whatever can be made for setting-up a board and giving them neither power nor responsibility and whose only function would be to advise the Minister in a limited sort of way and hope he will accept it even though he has no confidence in them from the word "go"?
The Parliamentary Secretary has missed my point in relation to the argument on the last portion of Deputy Clinton's amendment when he cites, as an example, the Marts Act and says the fears expressed were groundless, that it is operating very well, and so on. When I argued against the concentration of power such as this in the hands of the political head of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, my argument and my objection are not of personal application either to the present Minister or to any particular Minister. It is one of general application on the broad principle of the undesirability of concentrating such powers in the political head of a Government Department.
Politics being what they are, people throughout the country having different political views, people being divided into supporters of different political Parties, I do not believe you can get the confidence that is needed to operate successfully, in the long term, measures such as this if you concentrate powers of that description in the hands of a Minister who is the political head of a Department. It is quite irrelevant to my argument to say that such and such an Act contains similar powers and that it has worked. That may be because of the particular Minister who is in office. It may be because it is accepted by the people in the particular trade. However, that need not necessarily be so all the time.
So long as the powers are there in a Bill, they can be used by a Minister in years to come in the way that that particular Minister interprets them and desires to use them. My objection is one of general principle to concentrating powers of this sort in that particular manner. It does not matter who the Minister is or who his successor will be. Last year, it was the Marts Bill: now it is the wool trade. The argument is on general lines. On these grounds, I do not think it is good to legislate in that way. I object to the provisions of this Bill for these reasons, as I objected to the provisions in the Marts Bill.
Deputy Clinton mentioned that people who had been selected to work on that sort of committee may later be dropped. That does not mean that the Minister himself might favour it. It is somewhat like the selecting of players for a football team and their subsequent performance on the field. The comhairle will be established for the betterment of the wool industry. In a football team, the selectors pick the players they consider best. If, in the course of the game, they find that some players are lethargic or have not the capacity then undoubtedly they would change some of the personnel of that team. The same could happen to any board as at present constituted. There is no question of snubbing people, and so on. People will be selected from the point of view of their knowledge and their capacity in relation to the wool trade, be they producers or buyers.
I see nothing peculiar in following the recommendations of the committee for improvements in the wool trade as regards standards, grading, and so on. As the registering authority, the Minister would perform that function and, in these respects, the Comhairle would act in an advisory capacity. I see nothing peculiar in his accepting their advice. I see no conflict of approach there. I do not accept that there could be any conflict of approach.
If the buying and export of wool is to be controlled by legislation, as the Bill proposes, it seems clear that the execution of the control should rest with the Minister, as it does in the case of other Acts affecting agriculture. In regard to what was said earlier that he did not have confidence in An Chomhairle Olla — this suggestion was implied——
No, it was said.
I certainly would have confidence in their advisory capacity——
But that is all.
——and the Minister would be perfectly entitled to take and heed their advice. I see nothing sinister in the fact that he retains the power of registration, and in fact holds the ultimate power of An Chomhairle Olla for himself, since he is the person selected or nominated by the Government to act and work in the best interests of every sphere of agriculture, one of which happens to be the wool trade. I see nothing sinister in the fact that he should guard jealously the rights and responsibilities placed fairly and squarely on his shoulders. If he were to hive off some of these responsibilities to any other section or to any board, it would be a retrograde step. How often do we hear criticism of the fact that Ministers have no function in the work of semi-State bodies? We are often told that we should have retained control of the semi-State bodies so that we could more readily account for them to this House. Every elected Member should guard the rights of this House which are sacrosanct and which need to be guarded as to who is to render an account to the public at large and particularly to the farmers in regard to their particular end of the business activities. I see no merit, nor can I concede that there is any merit, in accepting these amendments by Deputy Clinton.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 3 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 8——
I think it was agreed that we would take separate decisions on these amendments and that they would be discussed together.
Acting Chairman
If amendment No. 4 is defeated, as it is, amendments Nos. 5, 6, 8, 10, 13 and 14 also fall.
No. That was precisely the point Deputy Clinton made when moving the amendment. It was agreed that we discuss them together and take separate decisions. In fact, it would be possible, as will be appreciated now, to discuss amendment No. 5 to section 4 regardless of the decision on amendment No. 4. We could still ask that An Chomhairle should be referred to in section 5 rather than the Minister.
Acting Chairman
What is the significance of subparagraph (g) of the proposed amendment No. 4?
The significance of that was that if it were accepted, then in any event these amendments would have to take place and Deputy Clinton's further amendments simply would become drafting amendments but they stand independently of that. However, all that is beside the point. We have discussed them and what we want is a decision and we are prepared to accept the same decision as on the previous one.
Acting Chairman
The note I have here from the Ceann Comhairle is that no separate decisions are required on these subsequent amendments, if amendment No. 4 is defeated.
On a point of order, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was in the Chair and he eventually decided that all these amendments would be discussed together but that separate decisions would be taken on them. I agreed to that procedure. Now we seem to be departing from it.
Acting Chairman
The instruction I received from the Ceann Comhairle before he left the Chair was that there would be no separate decisions, in the event of amendment No. 4 being defeated.
My recollection is that the Minister also made it clear that there should be separate decisions. That would be in the Official Report.
Acting Chairman
I cannot refer to the Official Report. What are the Parliamentary Secretary's views?
The decision was reached by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and was agreed to. I do not mind separate decisions.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 5:
To delete "the Minister" where-ever those words occur in the section and substitute "An Chomhairle".
Acting Chairman
If the Parliamentary Secretary has no objection, I will put the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 6:
To delete "the Minister" where-ever those words occur in the section and substitute "An Chomhairle".
Question put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 7:
In subsection (2), paragraph (c), lines 35 and 36, to delete ", in the circumstances of any particular case,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, here representing the Minister, how "As soon as may be after the passing of this Act," the Minister shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, set up and maintain a register to be known as the Register of Buyers of Wool. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us soon what An Chomhairle Olla is going to do and what it cannot do, because its functions are so diminished and so small that it does not deserve to be in existence at all. Surely the normal functions for this responsible body, as we hope it will be, should be to keep a register of wool buyers and to set up such a register themselves, and they naturally would have to deal with application for registration? Perhaps the Department deals with applications for registration, but the Department cannot register people or refuse to register them until they are advised by this body. This is part of the divided responsibility that just will not work or will work only in the clumsiest possible fashion.
The Bill goes on to indicate the various things that shall be entered in this register and the following particulars are specified: the full name, address and description of the person registered as a registered buyer; a description of the premises. How can the Minister give a description of the premises? I assume that it is An Chomhairle Olla that will inspect the premises, and if they are going to advise the Minister, he will be working on secondhand advice. They are the only people who would be directly involved and who would be in a position to decide who should or should not be on the register.
Paragraph (c) says: "Such other particulars as the Minister, in the circumstances of any particular case, considers relevant." This is what I call a particularly dangerous statement to write into legislation. If the Minister does not like the colour of John Murphy's eyes, that can be a particular case. He can be singled out and the Minister can insist on a whole lot of extra particulars in his case. It is wide open to this type of victimisation. It may not happen — I hope it never will — but it is open to that.
I have two main objections to these provisions. First of all, the only people who should keep the register and decide what should be in it are the people who are going to do all the inspections and all the investigations, not the Minister himself. He will be acting on information at second hand, and this is the ridiculous aspect of it. Then there are these special circumstances being decided by the political head of a Department. What is the case for special circumstances? These are the powers I want to hand over to An Chomhairle Olla, and I am opposing the section because it certainly does not measure up to what I think it should measure up to.
First of all, let me put Deputy Clinton's mind at rest. It is the Minister's officers who will do the inspection and not An Chomhairle. If he is somewhat perturbed as to what the functions of An Chomhairle are——
They are written in here.
——he will find them in section 13. In regard to registration, as with exporters in relation to licensing, buyers will be given an opportunity of applying for registration.
Could I draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to paragraph (b) of section 13? It says in regard to the functions of An Chomhairle: "To advise the Minister in relation to the fixing of the standards to be applied to the registration of registered buyers."
Yes.
We are splitting hairs here.
Surely the Deputy does not expect any board of ten people to diversify themselves to such an extent as to be in whatever number of centres are applied for in the country, that they could go round and inspect each and every one of them?
Why not? The country is not so big.
It is not so small either.
It is going back to the gombeen man again.
Registration here is aimed at nothing sinister. We are not trying to put anyone out of business. Traditional buyers will not be refused the right to be registered, on the understanding that they will, if so required, equip their premises or make them suitable. This was implied in other legislation passed in this House, that there would be victimisation. I am surprised at Deputy Clinton constantly harping on this matter of victimisation. They say that suspicion haunts the guilty mind. I certainly would not accuse Deputy Clinton of being guilty of prejudice, but I think he over-emphasises the idea that any other person or persons would be so guilty. Any Minister or any officer of the Department, or any other Department for that matter, would not deliberately set himself out to deny anyone his right to make a living. At the same time we must — and nobody is more aware of this than Deputy Clinton — protect the standards of Irish wool, which have not been the best in the past. If we want to gain a foothold in the ever-competitive world wool market, we must have one quality only, the very best we can produce. This will not be got by any pleasantries passed here or anywhere else. It will be achieved only by the introduction of a code of standards, and surely it will be the principal function of An Chomhairle to ensure that these standards are set and maintained. The Minister and the officers of the Department will be acting only in co-operation with An Chomhairle in ensuring that the standards set by An Chomhairle will be maintained.
On a point of order, should we not have discussed the amendment prior to discussing the section?
We are discussing the amendment.
No, we are discussing section 5.
Acting Chairman
We can either treat this as a discussion on amendment No. 7, or if the House prefers, we can deal with amendment No. 7 and then go back to the section. If you want to have a discussion on amendment No. 7 now, it is perfectly in order.
This amendment was overlooked because it was not one of those grouped with amendment No. 4. That is one of the objections I had to this large grouping, that it makes for confusion and is very hard to follow.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Clinton, on amendment No. 7.
I have already referred to this question of the circumstances of any particular case. Why should there be special circumstances and why should there be any particular case? The Parliamentary Secretary said, or implied, that I have one of these haunted minds and that——
Acting Chairman
I think the Deputy already dealt with that.
In the course of discussing a section that we should not have been discussing because we were on section 5 before we should have been on it.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy did lay particular stress on the circumstances.
The Deputy is moving it now; he did not move it before.
Acting Chairman
He made the point without moving it. The point has already been made.
Certain references were made by the Parliamentary Secretary about this and he tried to justify this clause (c) which refers to "in the circumstances of any particular case" which the Minister considers relevant. I want to know what the Minister has in mind because when we are producing legislation, unless it is written into the Bill that something means one thing or another, it is of no use. The Minister might decide that he did not like the colour of John Murphy's eyes and that would be "circumstances of a particular case". The House and the people are entitled to know what would occasion these special circumstances. They should be written into the Bill. Even if the Minister explained what he has in mind, it is not good enough.
The only reason it is there is to ensure flexibility in the insertion of particulars in the register.
Would that not be achieved by accepting this amendment? If the subsection were to read "such other particulars as the Minister considers relevant", would that not still allow the flexibility? It would be of general application. It is wide open to the Minister to supply what is necessary.
The Minister in section 5 (2) (c) has sufficient power, even if these words were deleted. Surely he can get all the particulars he wants?
What is so repugnant about retaining the words?
A register has to be set up and the Minister prescribes certain particulars which must be entered into the register, the names and addresses, sufficient particulars to describe the premises and so on, and then we have this omnibus clause, which is obviously intended to cover anything else that might occur and which the Minister might not have listed already but which might be relevant for the purposes of the register. Normally, one would expect that this would read "such other particulars as the Minister considers relevant". If it read like that, it would cover anything the Minister considers relevant. By putting it that way, it is of general application and the same rule will be applied to every entry in relation to the register. It will be the same for everyone if it is "such other particulars as the Minister considers relevant".
The Parliamentary Secretary asks what is the objection to retaining the words "in the circumstances of any particular case". Surely it is up to him to make the case why it is necessary to put in those particular words when the sub-paragraph contains sufficient without them to deal with cases on a universal, general basis? Why is it necessary in those circumstances to refer to the circumstances of any particular case?
The reason is that in the course of time you will find isolated cases which would involve grave hardship. Surely it would be better to have provision made to cover these rather than to be compelled possibly to put people out of business altogether or give them no opportunity of converting what may be unsuitable premises into suitable premises? The more sinister fears of the Deputy can be allayed by the knowledge that the register will be open for inspection during office hours at the Department so that there cannot be any peculiarities in particular cases.
You can inspect the names and addresses; that is all.
The names of those who are on the register. If he has any particular case in mind, he will be able to see forthwith that the person has been registered and he will know the reason in fairness——
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could give us an example? There may be a good reason for this but certainly it is not an obvious one. One would imagine that when a register of this sort is being established and when the Minister is prescribing that particular information be entered in it, it should be the same for everyone rather than that there should be power to say: "Well, in relation to A, I want to know his name, address and his premises——
And how much money he has in the bank.
——and in relation to B, his name, address, bankers, the number of children he has, and so on."
You will find that 95 per cent of the cases will pass muster on the first occasion and that probably 4.9 of the remainder will be able to adapt themselves but——
This is not a case of passing muster. This is a case of prescribing what is to be entered on the register. The case of passing muster will come along in section 6, as regards buyers, and in section 7, in regard to exports. This is only settling the form which the register is to take and surely one would expect that to be the same for everyone?
It gives flexibility as regards the insertion of particulars in the register and from that point of view it is well worth retaining.
But that flexibility is still given if you leave out the words which the amendment proposes should be left out.
You have suspicious flexibility if you leave them in.
There will be, as there are in all walks of life, isolated cases and it would be unfair to legislate against a very small minority.
That is the point we are making.
It is worth while leaving them in.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary appreciate that all that this is doing here is settling the form of the register so that it is not a question of particular cases getting in or not getting in. It is a question of information to be given on the register. The cases are in or they are not in. If they are in, they are on the register. If we leave this as it is at the moment, it is deciding what information is to be given about particular cases.
Does the Deputy not concede it is a valid point to have flexibility?
I am not objecting to flexibility because it would be there anyway. It would be flexible for everyone if these words are taken out.
The Parliamentary Secretary does not appreciate the significance of the case we are making. He is quite off beam when he says there can be no suspicion about this, that if one wants to know who is on the register, the register is open for inspection. We are fighting for the fellow who is debarred from the register. I can see that the Parliamentary Secretary is not really able to make a case and I would ask him to undertake, on behalf of the Minister, to have another look at this between now and Report Stage.
The Minister may well have reservations.
Bad and all as he is, if he were here, I think we would convince him.
I can see that the Minister might make a case, normally speaking, that he would only require on the register a person's name, address and premises, but, if there is an application in with a local authority for planning permission, and it has not been granted, he would want that noted on the register; he would want it noted that the premises are subject to planning permission. I could understand it if that were the kind of special circumstances the Minister might have in mind; he would want to make sure that the entry on the register was not going to be taken as presupposing that some consent— for example, Land Commission consent—was needed or permission from some other Department of State was going to be granted automatically because of the entry on the register. If there were a case of that nature put up here, we could consider it. There might be something in it, but, as it stands, there does not seem to be any necessity at all for these words and all we are doing is settling the particulars to be entered on the register and there does not seem to be any reason why they should not be the same for everyone.
The only thing I can say at this point is that the parliamentary draftsman advised the wording and I presume it is a drafting point.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary undertake to speak to the Minister about the deletion of these words?
I will.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
On that undertaking, yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5.
Normally, we should now discuss section 5, but we put the cart before the horse in your absence and we have, I think, discussed it sufficiently.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendment No. 8 was discussed with amendment No. 4.
I move amendment No. 8:
To delete "the Minister" whereever those words occur in the section and substitute "An Chomhairle".
Amendment put and declared lost.
In regard to amendment No. 9, amendment No. 11 is cognate. Both may be discussed together.
Yes. I move amendment No. 9:
In subsection (1), page 5, to delete "may, at his discretion" and substitute "shall, subject to subsection (2) of this section".
Here, again, we see no reason why this discretionary power should be held by the Minister. This deals with the application for and conditions of registration. The section provides:
On the application, in such form and containing such particulars as the Minister may direct, by or on behalf of a person who proposes to carry on the business of a buyer of wool the Minister may, at his discretion, register the person in the register as a registered buyer....
We want "shall" instead of "may"—"shall, subject to subsection (2) of this section". We hold in this case, as in all cases, that the people should know in advance what the conditions are for registration, what they should do, what they should measure up to, and it should be the same for everyone. All should have to comply with the same conditions and measure up to the same standards—minimum standards, minimum equipment, minimum accommodation—below which they must not go. They may go above. But everyone should know where he stands. It is deplorable that the political head of a Department should be in a position to lay it down that something is at his discretion: "I do not like that fellow. He really has everything but he votes Fine Gael. He was very prominent in the last election."
Do not go so low now.
That is not going half as low as certain people have gone. It is totally wrong to have this at the discretion of the Minister. A whole list of conditions is set down under subsection (1) before the Minister registers any person but one is not told the conditions under which a person will not be registered. That discretion is retained by the Minister. This is the big stick, the weapon over the applicant's head and, if the Minister does not like him, down the stick will come. Why should we not know in advance why this discretion is necessary? The same discretion is written in in relation to the granting of a licence for carrying on the business of exporting wool. Surely an exporter of wool should know that, if he does not measure up to certain standards, he is not entitled to be registered as an exporter of wool? If he does something wrong, he should lose his licence. Nowhere in the Bill is it stated that he will lose his licence. If wool is exported under specification, the exporter should lose his licence, but there is no provision to that effect. Yet, the Minister has discretionary powers to continue giving an unreliable exporter a licence to export wool.
Or withdraw it.
Exactly, and he has no obligation to give any reason and there is no appeal. The Minister has sole discretion. Why is that necessary? We have had this before on several occasions. There is no convincing reason that anybody can advance as to why this should be retained. Therefore, we have the amendment.
On the face of it and looking at things in the first instance, it would appear that there is tremendous merit in Deputy Clinton's amendment but he does not rule out all the possibilities and this is why discretion must be left to the Minister. If the amendment were accepted, the effect would be to compel the Minister to register anyone who satisfied the conditions set out in section 6.
He should know now the conditions he wants.
In the normal case, a person who did satisfy fully all these conditions would be registered but there is a very real and positive danger that at some stage in the near or in the distant future someone would come along, a firm, individual or cartel, and monopolise or tend to monopolise the entire wool industry. If the Minister were obliged to register everyone who fulfilled all the normal conditions there would be no way of safeguarding the market against such a monopoly. By having this discretionary power— and the word "may" gives him this— there is such safeguard and he will be able to control the affairs of wool buying and selling and protect against would-be monopolists even though they may have satisfactory premises and competent staff. Such a monopoly, as the Deputy appreciates, would more than likely depress—it would aim at depressing—wool prices here and you would have, as you have in England, this confused situation. I do not think that, on reflection, Deputy Clinton will press this amendment.
I draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the fact that quite a short time ago, on the previous amendment, he said that there would be so many buyers in the country it would not be possible for An Chomhairle Olla to get around them. Now we have reduced them to one. It is now a monopoly of one. That is the great fear and this is the great safeguard being put in here because of a monopoly of one. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary is not making a case there? I draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to subsection (4) of section 6 which reads:
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a person who carries on the business of a buyer of wool and who, immediately before the passing of this Act, carried on that business, shall, if in relation to the premises in which such business is so carried on or any plant or machinery therein, any regulations under this Act and applicable thereto are complied with, be entitled, on payment of the prescribed fee (if any), to be registered in the register as a registered buyer.
There the Minister ties himself to giving this man a licence. He ties and binds himself. That is not a capital sin. I agree with that. If it is not a capital sin to bind himself in subsection (4) of section 6, if certain conditions are fulfilled, to give a man a licence, surely the same should be open to anybody who is capable of doing a good job of selling wool? You may have a case of a first-class co-op which might be set up by a farmers' organisation which the Minister did not like and the Minister would use his discretion and say that he will not give a licence. That is too bad. This is legislation that is extremely undesirable. I should like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary telling us why it is possible for the Minister under a specified set of conditions in subsection (4) to bind himself to giving a licence and will not bind himself anywhere else. He wants this little hammer that he can use or this little carrot that he can hold out.
The Deputy, either deliberately or unwittingly, minister-prets the Minister. The Minister is merely holding discretionary power, not as a carrot or a hammer to induce or coerce, but rather to protect the interests of the wool trade of this country. While the Deputy quite rightly adverted to the fact that I did mention that there were a large number of premises at present in the country, he must concede the point that we are living in the era of monopoly and take-over and joint firms moving in and not only Irish firms but foreign firms could well be attracted if they found that there was an easy killing to be made here.
I hope we will never allow an easy killing on the producers of wool in this country.
It could well be the case, if they got a complete monopoly of the market. The Deputy is aware that no business, trade or industry is so vulnerable as the agricultural community are to the activities of cartels. The Minister must, in fairness both to himself and the farming community, retain the discretionary power to protect the interests of the wool trade of this nation and anyone who advances a theory whereby he would be disarmed of this discretion would be doing a disservice to the agricultural community. Certainly, I would not credit Deputy Clinton with having that in mind. I appreciate that he does not intend to work against agricultural interests here. For that reason I would expect that he would withdraw this amendment.
Would all that danger not be avoided by accepting amendment No. 8, which would leave the power in the hands of An Chomhairle Olla?
I must remind the Deputy that we have passed from amendment No. 8.
I know that. It is simply relevant to the argument. It would save the Minister embarrassment and it would protect.
Surely no Irish Minister would be embarrassed in saving Irish agriculture?
It would take the obligation off the Minister and put it on An Chomhairle who are concerned with the trade.
Surely there is no one more concerned with the trade than the Minister?
When I say "concerned", I mean personally concerned.
Yes, personally.
He is concerned as Minister; the others are personally concerned. At least three of them will be representative of producers and three at least will be from the trade.
The Parliamentary Secretary has set out to make the case that this is inserted in the Bill to give protection to the producer but he has made no case that I can appreciate for this as providing any protection for the producer. If the discretion is going to be used by saying to a person: "Even though you fulfil the conditions that other buyers of wool fulfil, I will not give you a licence" or "I will not register you as a buyer, even though you have fulfilled all these conditions", what is the reason? Is it that there are too many buyers there already? There is nothing to beat competition if you want to help the producer.
So we agree.
Is it his fear that another should be let in?
No, that is not his fear. The desire is to maintain the position where one would not monopolise the trade.
Could it not be put in as a condition that the Minister must be satisfied that it is not in furtherance of a monopoly, for example? Would that not solve the difficulty?
The Deputy knows through his own profession that people who set out with malice aforethought can well find devious ways of sidestepping and evading regulations by calling themselves by various names and buying up other companies.
Could that not happen as it is?
I doubt it very much, not when the personnel would be known, and the names and addresses.
If an organisation are to get the hammer, they should know why. The fact that it is being done through the use or misuse of discretion is not good enough. They should know in what dimension they are wrong. There is nothing in this to indicate what these dimensions are except that there is a set of conditions here that an applicant must fulfil before he will be registered, but there is no similar set of conditions in which he is going to refuse. He shall have regard to them but he shall use his discretion just the same. I cannot see a case made for it on any grounds so far.
In subsection (3), it is to be noted the Minister, where he proposes to reject an application, must tell the applicant the reasons. That surely should allay Deputy Clinton's fears?
That is not the same thing. It does not say the grounds on which the Minister may refuse. It simply says that having refused, the Minister shall state his grounds. The burden of Deputy Clinton's complaint is that people do not know in advance the grounds on which the Minister may refuse other than the fact that the Minister is not satisfied under (b) (i) (ii) and (iii), but people do not know what other grounds might be necessary.
I have given one example of what might be a reasonable case for rejection. The fact that the Minister would have to state afterwards why he rejected any application is a guarantee that it would not be for a frivolous reason, nor would it be one which he as Minister could not justify in the public interest.
But he does not have to justify them. He agrees to consider them.
Surely Deputy Clinton will concede that no Minister would place himself in the invidious position of refusing an application for some harum-scarum reason but that he would have some valid and cogent reason for doing so? The fact that he has to state afterwards the reason for his refusal is a guarantee that it would be a good and valid reason. I cannot anticipate all the peculiar cases that might arise, if indeed any arise. Certainly the Minister would not go out on a limb to refuse a genuine and justified application without good reason. If there were a good reason for doing so, the application could no longer be justified.
I have seen Ministers doing queer things and making decisions nobody but they themselves understood. It is for that reason I am objecting to this discretionary power without outlining the circumstances in which he will use this discretion.
Might I put this to the Parliamentary Secretary? If this section were reframed in another way, if there were an effort to write into the section the grounds upon which a Minister might refuse an application, even if there were an omnibus reason such as in section 5, it would be preferable to this. I did not hear the entire of the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks and I probably misunderstood him. He seemed to me, when he was arguing about the necessity to have this discretion vested in the Minister in order to protect the wool trade and the producers, to argue that the reason for the discretion— and I thought he meant the sole reason for the discretion—was because we were living in an age of the take-over and so on and that it was necessary to protect our own people against the possibility of take-overs.
If that is the reason behind it, it would be very easy to write that into the Bill and to put down in subsection (2), as one of the matters about which the Minister must be satisfied before he gives a licence, the fact that there is no question of a monopoly being established. If there were other reasons of equal importance that the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary felt would justify the refusal I do not see that there is anything against writing those into subsection (2), listing them and at the tail-end of the list if necessary, if the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary or their advisers felt there was something that might be listed, I would think then that even the inclusion of an omnibus clause such as "for any other reason which to the Minister or to An Chomhairle seem reasonable" or something of that sort would be preferable than leaving it in this vague way where there is no substantial guideline laid down other than the vague generality of Ministerial discretion.
I should certainly weigh in with Deputy O'Higgins if I could think of all the devious routes people would eventually discover. There is no doubt that people out to get around regulations seem to be much more adept at discovering all the ways and means than those who try to protect normal relations and standards and even legalities. No matter what legislation is introduced people will find some easy way out of the regulations as such. Leaving it to the discretion of the Minister is the safest way to ensure that no matter what route is taken or what subterfuge is adopted, if it does come to light, it can be halted straight away. I do not think anyone in this House or outside it could elaborate all the devious ways that could be adopted by any person desiring to depress the price of wool or gain advantage for themselves, or even decry the wool industry of this nation for peculiar reasons.
Before we leave this section——
We are on the amendment.
Before we leave the amendment, I would ask the Minister why in the case of subsection (4) of section 6 the Minister considered it was all right to bind himself, subject to certain circumstances and conditions being complied with. If he can bind himself in this way for existing people, surely it is unfair discrimination against people who will, we hope, come into the business in the future, co-operative societies and so on? Why should he add an additional dimension or qualification in their case? Why should he hold this over their heads and say: "Even if you do comply with all the conditions I have outlined in subsection (4), while I bind myself to give it to the existing people I do not necessarily bind myself to give it to you"?
I think the Deputy exaggerates the point there.
I am not; I am stating the facts.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill".
All the arguments we have put in moving amendment No. 9 equally stand against the section. I do not want unnecessarily to delay the House. I am anxious that some sort of legislation in relation to wool be got through this House as fast as possible, consistent with trying to make it good. But I am afraid we are failing rather badly tonight. I have no further arguments to advance against the section I have not advanced in moving amendment No. 9. I should like the House to take it that I have the same objection I expressed on amendment No. 9 to the section.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Amendment No. 10 was dealt with with amendment No. 4 and amendment No. 11 was taken with amendment No. 9. Amendment No. 12 falls.
Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill".
Again the discretionary powers are given here. At line 39 we see "at his discretion grant or refuse to grant a licence." Here we have the same sort of argument. If I want to get a licence to export wool, I know there are certain conditions which will normally have to be fulfilled. Before I make that application, I must set up, so to speak, as an exporter. This involves considerable expense of one sort or another. Before I embark on this expenditure, I am entitled to know that if I do certain things and comply with certain conditions, I am then entitled to a licence. That is what is really in our amendment. We are looking for nothing more or less. Section 7 leaves this so open that after going to all the expense and all the trouble of making the necessary arrangements, the Minister may use his discretion and say: "No, you do not qualify; we cannot give you a licence." I think this is a very objectionable section and it should be amended.
I want to call attention to the fact that, quite apart from the discretion in section 7 in regard to the granting of a licence, there is also in subsection (4) a provision that the Minister may, if he so thinks fit, amend or revoke a condition attached to a licence, and you have in subsection (3) the provision that the Minister may, at the time of the granting of a licence under this section, attach to the licence such conditions as he shall think proper and shall specify in the licence.
It seems to me, that, while this is perfectly reasonable, and while no very great objection will be taken to the idea of the Minister being entitled to attach conditions, provided there were some general guidelines as to the circumstances in which the conditions would be attached; if such guidelines are there in relation to subsection (4), there should be spelled out in the section the particular circumstances in which the Minister may revoke or amend or vary the conditions attached to the licence.
The point I am making in relation to subsections (3) and (4) is that people will not know where they stand unless the Minister is prepared between now and Report Stage to amend this in some way which will give definite guidelines to people as to the particular circumstances which will require to be in existence before (a) conditions are attached or (b) conditions are altered or varied.
I think Deputy Clinton made the point earlier that anyone who did anything to discredit Irish wool should be penalised. This section deals effectively with that. A person can be made amenable to the highest discipline and standards by virtue of the fact that he may lose his licence.
This section does not deal with revocation.
It is implied in it. "The Minister may, if he so thinks fit, amend or revoke...."
Sorry.
I think that is the point the Deputy made earlier.
It does not say he will revoke it.
He may. It would depend on how grave the offence was.
I think Deputy Clinton is right. Section 9 deals with cancellation of licences.
If a licence were to be granted on each individual consignment, there would have to be an inspection. It should be incumbent on the exporter rather than having an inspection of each lot.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Amendment No. 13 was dealt with with amendment No. 4.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendment No. 14 is consequential on amendment No. 4.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
I move amendment No. 15:
In subsection (4) (e), page 7, line 24, before "of" to insert "or solicitor".
This amendment speaks for itself. Section 9 provides that, if certain things happen, the Minister shall appoint a person who is a practising barrister of at least ten years standing to hold an inquiry. I hold very strongly that a practising solicitor of ten years standing would be just as well qualified to do the same job and he might cost a bit less. That is the only point. There will probably be no objection to the amendment. I imagine the Parliamentary Secretary will at least be empowered to accept this amendment on behalf of the Minister. It is so obvious that a solicitor of the same number of years standing would be equally well qualified.
I should love to oblige the Deputy but I would have all sorts of people after me, including the legal profession who, I am sure, are guarding this very zealously. The view of the parliamentary draftsman is that it is a well established precedent that inquiries are held by barristers only. For that reason I regret I cannot accept the amendment.
Is there one good reason which the Parliamentary Secretary can advance why a solicitor would not be competent to hold this inquiry?
I am sure there are solicitors who would be as competent as, and more competent than, barristers. There is no precedent that I know of where solicitors adjudicate on these inquiries.
Is it seriously advanced that this House should accept a position merely because the Government are advised by the parliamentary draftsman that the usual thing is that inquiries should be conducted by barristers? That does not seem to me to be any adequate reason why a particular precedent should obtain for all time. Surely we have not arrived at the stage here where the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary are simply going to take what is dished up to them as precedents without applying their own minds to it and without being prepared to have a fresher look at it?
I could understand and excuse the Minister's coming into this House with the Bill in this form because that is what he is advised but, when an amendment is seriously moved by Deputy Clinton, I do not think it is an adequate answer to say: "This is what we are advised is the precedent: this is what the parliamentary draftsman tells us has always been done". I do not think that that is an answer to an amendment of this sort. Surely some fresh thinking is required? It seems to me that this would be an appropriate amendment for the new Deputy from East Limerick to make his maiden speech on.
I shall bring this to the attention of the Minister before Report Stage. The only cogent reason I can give is possibly that the wig is made from some wool and that it might be discriminating against the customer.
I suppose it would be woolly thinking, anyway.
I shall discuss the matter with the parliamentary draftsman.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill".
Section 10 reads:
(1) The Minister may, if he so thinks fit, by regulation grant exemption from the provisions of this Act in relation to businesses of a particular class and to which this Act would otherwise apply.
(2) This Act shall not apply in relation to a business of a class in respect of which an exemption under this section has been granted and has not been withdrawn.
(3) The Minister may at any time withdraw an exemption under this section.
This is something we have had in previous legislation and, in my view, it is most objectionable. Here we are, producing legislation and setting out a whole list of rules and regulations that must be adhered to—statutory regulations—and, at the end of all of these exercises, we read that the Minister can flout the lot. He can exempt any friend of his, for any reason that he does not have to give. Surely this is the type of legislation that is most undesirable?
We have the political head of a Department putting himself in the position that, regardless of anything written into this measure, seeing somebody he wants to befriend, he can say: "To hell with this Act. I do not care whether or not it is in existence. You are a pal of mine. You are exempted. You may carry on and buy or export wool. You may do it with wool of any description so long as you are a friend of mine." How can the Parliamentary Secretary get on his feet and make a case for the retention of section 10——
He is not.
"The Minister may, if he so thinks fit, by regulation grant exemption from the provisions of this Act....": what is the sense in having an Act with provisions in it if the Minister reserves to himself the right to dispense with all the conditions in a particular case? Surely this is wide open for exploitation by any Minister or any head of a Department?
It is classes of wool that will be exempted in this instance. The main concern is with the purchase of wool, with producers. Take, for example, the buying of skein wool. Skein wool is not normally bought from producers. That will be exempted.
Why is that not said?
Why is it not written into the Bill?
In the United Kingdom, the purchase of skein wool is not controlled. Control was tried there and subsequently dropped. This provision for exemption was contained also in the Livestock Marts Act, 1967.
And serious objection was made to it.
Nonetheless, all the terrible dangers Deputies opposite see embedded in this have not come to light nor is there any danger that they would ever——
They might.
Specified classes of wool will be exempted from the Act.
Is there any particular class?
It seems to me an atrocious provision to write into any Act. Certainly, the fact that a similar provision is in the Livestock Marts Act does not justify it. It pinpoints the danger of what I referred to a few minutes ago—the question of what is or is not a precedent. We make our precedents as we go along. If we use this sort of provision as a precedent in the future—apparently we are agreeing to the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks that the precedent is in the Marts Act—there is nothing at all to prevent the Minister for Local Government, the next time he is introducing a Road Traffic Bill, from putting in a section to say that "the Minister may, as he thinks fit, grant exemption from the provisions of this Act to any particular driver or classes of drivers or for any particular vehicle or classes of vehicles." I think the Government are opening the door to a very dangerous type of precedent.
I accept what the Parliamentary Secretary says that these particular types of businesses, such as skein wool and that kind of thing, are what are in question here, but that is not clear and there is no reason why it should not be written into this section, once that is the kind of provision the Government want. Remember, the phrase used in section 10 is "in relation to businesses of a particular class...." This whole Bill up to now has been concerned with two businesses, the business of buying wool and the business of exporting wool, and it would seem to me that anyone reading this Bill would automatically assume that the businesses referred to in section 10 are either the business of buying or the business of a wool exporter. The Parliamentary Secretary tells us in effect that is not so. Why not write into section 10 just what is meant? Why have this general provision that is going to lead to confusion particularly as we were already in the Bill talking about dealing with and thinking about particular businesses, or classes of businesses, because the two are separate.
Deputy O'Higgins has made the case that this Bill to date has been concerned with two groupings, the producers and the wool traders and buyers. The purchase of skein wool is made from butchers and is not direct from producers as such. However, this is by way of regulation which may be revoked by the House and so there is no need for undue worry on the Deputy's part.
Would the Minister explain in subsection (2) whether it is a misprint where it says "in relation to a business of a class"? Should that read "or a class"?
No, I think it is correct, "... of a class in respect of which exemption under this section has been granted and has not been withdrawn."
Could the class there not be the business of buying wool? Is there anything to limit it or to exclude either the buying or exporting of wool in this section?
There could be further development in the use of wool that is not normally saleable at present.
I am not trying to trap the Parliamentary Secretary.
I appreciate that.
What I want to know is, if subsection (2) as it stands, can apply to the business of a registered wool buyer or can it apply to the business of wool exporting? If it can, even if it is not intended to, then it means in effect that section 10 could be applied for the purpose of scrapping the application of the Act to particular people in those businesses?
I think it is terrible to hear the Parliamentary Secretary trying to make a case for section 10 on the ground that there is a similar section in the Marts Bill, an Act that was guillotined through this House and one that is at present listed for testing in the courts as to its constitutionality.
It has been a long time waiting.
Do not worry; it will come and it is the opinion of one of the most eminent constitutional lawyers in the country that it is unconstitutional. This is what the Parliamentary Secretary is advancing as a good reason why this section should be retained. This is the precedent, one that we all deplore.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary in a position to answer my queries? If he is not, would he have the matter dealt with by the Minister? I think he appreciates its importance. It goes to the root of this. I do not know how we can get around this. I should feel more comfortable, and possibly the Parliamentary Secretary would also, if we could get an answer to that query before passing from this section. Could we, by agreement, leave this section over until we get an answer?
I do not know how——
I appreciate that the Parliamentary Secretary is not in a position to answer it now but I do not want to leave this section until it is answered.
Obviously we are not going to complete our business tonight on this measure. Could it not be deferred until tomorrow morning?
Is there agreement that discussion of the section be postponed?
We agree.
Is it the wish of the House to end the discussion at present and take the question of the Adjournment?
I agree to that.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.