The Minister says that similar provisions have been in operation since 1881. I sat on county councils for many years and I never came across them. If they are there, they are dormant.
Seeds and Fertilisers Supply Bill, 1940—Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 and 2 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
The boards of guardians operated them.
I sat on boards of guardians too and they never operated them. I sat on one in Lismore with Senator Goulding and I do not remember them. However, the fact that they were there does not necessarily mean that they were right. I do not think the Minister should castigate me severely and cast aside what I conceive to be a sound principle even though it may have been violated in the past by the British Government. I am not a stubborn adherent of British practice in all things. If it is bad, I am quite prepared to say that we should not follow it, as we are now.
The Minister told me that it has been the practice hitherto, but I want the House to realise that we are now entering into direct obligations with citizens, who are not rated occupiers. I think I am right in saying that the ordinary relation between a county council and a citizen is that a citizen becomes a rated occupier, and, as a rated occupier, pays his rates. The whole machinery for distraint and for securing the rates is involved in that. We are now entering into dealing with non-rated occupiers, and the county authority is put into this position of a supplier of goods to all and sundry. I may be told that it is not a new principle, but I think it is a dangerous principle and it is unsound administration. You are turning your rate collectors into officers for the collection of what, in practice, corresponds to shop-debts. In that consists my chief objection to this measure. There may have been certain slight departures of this character in the past, but if this practice has prevailed on the wide scale the Minister suggests, what is the need for all this elaborate machinery? Where was the statutory power before to embark on this class of business? I hope the Minister will enlighten me on this point. He says I am really attacking an old established practice. I now ask him where is the statutory authority for this old-established practice. There is no reference to it in any other Act. This is not an amending Bill and it repeals no Act that I can see. I still say that, in spite of the Minister's castigation, this does in essence involve a new principle, and I maintain that until I have been convinced to the contrary by argument.
All these measures passed from 1881 were temporary measures, just as this is a temporary measure. In 1932 the Seanad here passed a similar Bill. These are simply temporary measures started in 1881, and they have been passed from time to time since.
Where on the face of the Bill does it say that it is a temporary measure? After all, in temporary measures it is stated that the Bill shall be in operation for a certain time. In his introductory statement the Minister never said that it was a temporary measure.
Will the Senator read the long Title? He will see there the date "ending on the 31st day of July, 1940".
I see. After that period it lapses completely?
Of course.
Section put and agreed to.
Section 4 to 10 inclusive, and the Title, agreed to.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.