I have been requested to call this Bill again. The decision in regard to the next stage was that it would be taken on Wednesday next.
Agricultural and Fishery Products (Regulation of Export) Bill, 1947—Committee and Final Stages.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
There are certain Orders I want to make.
Cannot the Seanad discharge an Order it has made and make another Order? If the Minister had made the case that he was going abroad, I would have been quite prepared to meet it. Of course, the plain fact of the matter was that none of the Minister's colleagues on his left and on my right made that case. They have been——
Singularly remiss.
They have been remiss until this late stage just as they were perhaps somewhat remiss yesterday in other matters. But, if they now make the case, and if the Minister makes it, that he is going abroad, I am prepared to agree that the Seanad should discharge the Order previously made.
Ordered: That the Order of to-day fixing the Committee Stage of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Bill for Wednesday next be discharged and that the Committee Stage be now taken.
The Seanad went into Committee on the Bill.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
On Section 3, would the Minister not consider some system by virtue of which, without having licences published in the public Press, they could be available in certain circumstances? I would not even go so far as saying that the public could ascertain by publication in the Press but I think that particulars about licences should, for example, be made available to members of the Oireachtas on request.
I have been asked that question before. I have given the assurance that on no occasion would information be refused to a person who was legitimately seeking it, but there are occasions when people would be trying to probe into the business of others and I would not like to give a general assurance that information would be available in all circumstances. I do not think it could be charged against us that we had refused permission when legitimately sought and I can only say that I will give the Seanad the assurance that that practice will be continued, whether the information is sought in a public way or by persons approaching the Department.
Would the Minister say what process is followed in checking applications for licences? In other words, is this a case in which there is a particular officer specified to issue licences and if so must he be responsible for the issue of every licence, or is it a case of there being in the Department a junior officer who interviews an applicant, considers his case, writes a file, sends it along and the licence is issued automatically? I raised this point—I have raised it on a few occasions—with the officials of the Department of Industry and Commerce during the sitting of the Commission of Vocational Organisation. I could not get a reply on that occasion, and an undertaking was given that if my queries were submitted in writing a written reply would be given. The queries were submitted in writing to the Department. No reply was received. One of the things that has always baffled me is as to how these decisions are reached. I would not expect the Minister to sit down in his office and examine every case. It would be beyond his capacity. It would be beyond the capacity of anyone to do it. I am anxious to know what process is followed in checking applications and reaching decisions.
There is not as much in this as Senator Duffy would seem to suggest. As I have already explained to the Seanad, all these licences were issued to people who were taking parcels of meat, butter or a few eggs to England or to people who were able to furnish a doctor's certificate or something to that effect enabling a brother, a sister or mother to get such things. That was a trivial matter and was entirely routine. Any citizen who made application to the Department, when these licences were being issued, got the licence. It was purely a routine matter. The principal reason for this measure is entirely different. It is, as I have said, in order to deal with the many types of cases that arise as a result of the policy followed by the British Government in having all food imported into the country through the British Ministry of Food. A quantitative arrangement of one kind or another had to be made between the two Governments and in that case, where there was one exporter on the other side, there were perhaps 30 or 40 people engaged in that business here. You had, therefore, to find out who they were. They had to register and they had to get a licence. In consultation with those people themselves the amount had to be distributed among those engaged in the trade.
Take, for example, the canning industry in which nine or 11 concerns were engaged. We entered into a contract with the British Ministry of Food to take so many million lb. of canned meat. We had to register all those canners. Licences are issued to each canner. The apportionment takes place as a result of consultation amongst themselves. Each canner gets a licence to export that portion of the entire contract to which his business entitles him. That is all that is really in this. It is one of the principal reasons why a measure of this kind is necessary. I do not see how any of the fears that Senator Duffy appears to have could arise. Certainly, since I came into office no difficulties have arisen. There has to be consultation on this side with all those who are engaged in whatever business is controlled in the fashion that I have described.
While I am not making any suggestion with regard to difficulties or abuses the Minister is probably aware that abuses did take place in other Government Departments in regard to licences.
The explanation which the Minister has now given in connection with these licences proves that I was right in raising the question of the £10 fine. The canning industry during the emergency period was built up into an immense trade. Therefore, I repeat what I said earlier, that, if someone looking for a new licence makes a declaration which he knows to be false and misleading, a penalty of only £10 is not appropriate at all. I would like to put in an amendment to increase the penalty to £100.
The Minister will not give him a licence.
But the licence may have been given to him. Subsequently it is found that, in order to get the licence, he gave evidence which he knew to be false and misleading. I think that the penalty provided is extremely low. I cannot introduce an amendment now.
The Senator can move it on the next stage.
Are we taking the next stage now?
Can I have an assurance from the Minister that the practice that has been carried on for the past eight years will be continued with regard to the issuing of licences to the national executive of the cattle traders' association in connection with export licences?
This Bill has nothing to do with that.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
Will the Minister say what is the reason for Section 5?
It is necessary in the case of certain agricultural produce which is an industrial raw material. Power is being given to transfer from the Minister for Agriculture to the Minister for Industry and Commerce powers which the former Minister exercised.
What powers are they?
They relate to wool, feathers, hides, skins.
Surely these are matters that should be dealt with by the Minister for Agriculture. I cannot understand why the Minister for Agriculture hands over these agricultural products to the Minister for Industry and Commerce for the purposes of this Bill.
The reason is that they are industrial raw materials. It is felt that it is more appropriate that they should be dealt with by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Such powers were contained in the 1935 Act. There is nothing new in this. Similar powers were contained in the Act which is being repealed.
So that as far back as 1935 the Minister for Industry and Commerce was overruling the Minister for Agriculture.
I am not to be taken as approving of the Senator putting it that way.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 6, 7 and 8 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is there any objection to the taking of the next stage to-day?
Senator O'Donovan indicated that he wanted to move an amendment.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Chair does not think that is the proper way of doing it. Surely the amendment should be submitted in writing and I have not yet received it and do not know what its effect may be.
It has always been understood that when the House agrees to take all stages of a Bill on the one day an amendment may be taken in this way. Otherwise, our proceedings would be just a farce.
I want to say in all seriousness that I went out to prepare an amendment to submit on the Report Stage. When I speak in the House I speak seriously. I come back now and I find that the Bill is passed.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Bill has not been passed. If there is no objection we will take the amendment on this stage now.
Agreed.
What is the Senator's point.
The point is that here is an offence which has been committed knowingly by some person.
He knowingly gives false or misleading information and the penalty provided in the section for that offence is £10. I think it is too small. I suggest that the penalty be increased to £100. When a maximum penalty of £100 is put into a Bill, if an offence is committed and a person is prosecuted and convicted, the justice usually imposes a penalty which is much less than the maximum. The penalty of £10 in the Bill is too small.
I entirely support Senator O'Donovan on that.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator O'Donovan, I gather, is moving to delete the word "ten" in page 3, line 30, and to substitute the words "one hundred" in line 30.
There is no objection.
The purpose of the amendment is to enable the court to fine up to £100. The court can fine anything between ld. and £100 if the amendment is accepted. As the Bill stands the court can fine only between ld. and £10. I think that Senator O'Donovan is perfectly correct. In the case of a serious offence a penalty of £10 is far too small.
That is the amendment that I want to move. The canning industry is now worth £1,000,000. If a new company were to come along and make a deliberately false statement, I submit that a maximum penalty of £10 would be ridiculous.
If it is in order, I move the amendment:—
In page 3, line 29, to delete the word "ten" and to substitute therefor the words "one hundred".
I am prepared to accept the amendment. There is no objection to it.
Amendment agreed to.
Question:—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Mr. O'Donovan
I raised another point on Second Reading with regard to marine products.
It is a matter for the Department of Lands.
Mr. O'Donovan
I thought these could suitably be brought into this Bill, but Senator Ó Buachalla, who spoke subsequently, said they were clearly matters for the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Now the Minister says it is a matter for the Department of Lands.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator cannot amend the Bill on the final stage.
Mr. O'Donovan
I think I can still ask for an explanation as to the jurisdiction within which these marine products come. Is it the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister for Lands?
Gaeltacht Services branch of the Department of Lands.
Would you, Sir, allow me to say, as a person who has no knowledge of this matter, that the proceedings here are a perfect example of why we should not be asked to pass a Bill through all its stages? The very people who ask us to do so, and who support the Bill and the Minister, do not appear to be satisfied with the Bill themselves, and, when they have had an opportunity of bringing their knowledge to operate upon the Bill, this is a perfect example of how right Senator Douglas was when he suggested, in accordance with what we always do, that we should not take all the stages, even though we are anxious to facilitate Ministers and the conduct of business. On a matter of some importance, this is a perfect example of why that should not be done.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered: That the Bill as amended be returned to the Dáil.