asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the position in relation to the enforcement of the Livestock Marts Act in view of a recent High Court decision.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Livestock Marts Act.
31.
The High Court decision on certain provisions of the Livestock Marts Act, 1967, is being appealed to the Supreme Court and I have been advised that pending the Supreme Court's decision the provisions concerned are not enforceable. Without the support of these provisions, it is not practicable to enforce other provisions of the Act.
Will the Minister now admit that much valuable time was lost in this House when the Minister was pushing this Bill through the House and using the guillotine? Will the Minister not further agree that he was told at that time that this Bill was repugnant to the Constitution? Will he not further agree that the time of this House could have been used in getting much more valuable legislation on the Statute Book than the Marts Bill?
The first thing is that the Bill or, as it became, this Act is not unconstitutional as was first announced by way of a judgment delivered. There is only one part of it which was declared by the High Court to be unconstitutional, which amendment, incidentally, was not given anything like the publicity which was first given to the judgment that declared it to be unconstitutional. In so far as taking the Deputy's advice and that of his friends over there is concerned, one swallow never made a summer, as we know, and we do not even know if this is a swallow and we will not know until after the Supreme Court has determined the issue. Far be it from me to be misled into the belief—even though they might be right in some respects in this case— that one should take their advice without let or hindrance in all others.
Who will pay the cost of all this, the poor unfortunate taxpayers the Minister was sweating for a few minutes ago?
Does the information now given to us by the Minister mean that until the spring court assizes anybody can set up a livestock mart?
Yes.
In other words, we are in the same position as before the Livestock Marts Bill came in?
Except for one thing— and it would be as well that this should be known—if the Supreme Court in their wisdom decide to revert to the former status of the Act, then anything that will have been done by way of setting up marts in the interim will be affected retrospectively by the terms of the Act as we have known it. Therefore, while, legally speaking, they could go ahead and establish a mart without a licence, it could well be that when this matter is played out they would find themselves with a mart for which they had not sought or got a licence and in respect of which a licence might be refused subsequently; that they would then be in a position of having spent money on building a mart and have no licence and therefore no business.
During the intervening period does the Minister intend to indicate to persons whether or not he would give a licence for a mart in certain circumstances, so that progress will not be held up?
We are not being asked——
I know I have no case but if the Minister was asked would he indicate whether he would give a licence in certain circumstances?
I certainly could give friendly advice to such people.