Grass Meal (Production) Bill, 1952—Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. A1:—
In sub-section (2), line 17, after "bogland" to insert "including the purchase of live stock and the doing of all other such things as are in accordance with methods of good husbandry."
I raised this point on the Second Reading and unfortunately I had left the House when the Parliamentary Secretary addressed himself to the point, but from what he said it must be his opinion the Long Title will enable him to do this. If he is satisfied about it I want to have inserted in sub-section (2) the words "including the purchase of live stock and the doing of all other such things as are in accordance with methods of good husbandry".
The main point is the point I made on the Second Reading, namely, that I believe that the proper cultivation of this land, its proper development and growth of grass, can be helped by carrying live stock; in fact, it may be found after a period of experiment that this is absolutely essential. It did seem to me that this section covering the objects does not make provision for some officer of the Minister to go to a fair to purchase live stock. I do not want to have any long discussion on this but I am sure it is absolutely essential to have power to do that.
I have no doubt whatever that it ought to be part of the company's programme and it may very well be that the board set up to handle this project may discover after some time that, before there is any processing of grass into grass meal, the first process may be the grazing of this land over a period. If it is to be properly maintained it will be rather difficult work and may mean the purchase of sheep and young stock and, perhaps, in some cases older and heavier stock. What I am concerned about is that it will be within the powers of the company to be able to do this.
I appreciate that Senator Baxter was not present when I was replying to the point he made in this connection on the last occasion. Perhaps, the printed reports were not available at the time and I would draw his attention to columns 737 and 738, No. 8, Volume 41, where I suggested that in my opinion even in the Long Title there, perhaps, was sufficient scope to do what he suggests in his amendment. I am sure he will appreciate that the proper cultivation of this land will require many things which are not specifically provided for in the Bill. I think that if we are going to particularise in this instance there would be a danger of restricting the activities of the company and that perhaps their activities might be rendered too inflexible, for the proper carrying out of their functions.
On the last occasion, I suggested that I thought in the initial stages when it might be necessary to dispose of the crops apart from cutting, drying or making grass meal of them in the first few years that the feeding of it to cattle off the land itself or in the cut form would be likely to be one of the methods which the board would use. I have no doubt that under the terms of the Bill as it stands, the company would have power to graze properly, if necessary, the land on which the grass is to be grown.
I am satisfied if the Parliamentary Secretary feels satisfied that he possesses the power.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Government amendment No. 1:
Before Section 9 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Where a person who is a director of the company becomes a member of either House of the Oireachtas, he shall, upon his becoming entitled, under the Standing Orders of that House, to sit therein, cease to be a director of the company.
(2) A person, who is for the time being entitled under the Standing Orders of either House of the Oireachtas to sit therein, shall be disqualified from being a director of the company.
Mr. Lynch
This is a section which I have inserted in response to a submission by Senator P.F.O'Reilly, who was dealing in this case with a suggestion that a member of the House should be a member of the board. The Minister has readily accepted that suggestion and it is provided in this amendment. I am sure that the House will agree that it should be inserted.
I have heard this matter raised on a number of occasions here and I just want to mark my dissent from this point of view. I just do not agree with it. I heard Senator Professor O'Brien speaking on this point on a few occasions and quite frankly it is something I do not accept. I realise, of course, that there are some governmental authorities and semi-governmental authorities established where this would be quite impossible as a general principle. As Senator O'Brien argued, you might be denying yourself the opportunity of availing of the services of people who might prove very, very valuable indeed in certain capacities because of their experience.
I am not going to argue because I know that the amendment introduced by the Parliamentary Secretary is going to be carried and whatever members of the House think, I know that they are not going to say very much even though they may dissent. It seems to be Government policy. No matter who made the case, I would feel called upon to dissent from this point of view because it is something I never accepted and do not accept now, either.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In line 49, to delete "the Minister given after consultation with the Minister for Finance" and substitute "each House of the Oireachtas".
By virtue of Section 9 of the Bill, the memorandum or articles of association may be amended with the approval of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance. If the memorandum of association is to be altered, it has to be altered only because, I suggest, that what we contemplate or what, at any rate, we have discussed will be the business of the proposed company is to be extended, restricted or altered in accordance with the objects of the Bill. If we are to consent to alteration only by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance, we shall not see or know what is taking place in regard to the alteration of the objects of the company. I think it, therefore, desirable that we who are passing this measure on the basis that the proposed company will work for certain objects, should know what any alteration taking place in these objects may be.
My amendment seeks to provide that the memorandum or articles of association may not be altered without the approval of each House of the Oireachtas. In other words, we should not allow this Bill to go through in such a way that the memorandum and articles of association may be altered and thereby enable the company to do work other than that kind of work which we think was never contemplated. Clearly the memorandum of a company incorporated in the ordinary way may not be changed without the consent of the shareholders. The alteration of the memorandum of a company may be effected only with the approval of the courts except in one small instance.
Here we are establishing a company with certain objects in view. We have been told what these objects are and how they will be furthered. If we are going to allow two Ministers to alter the memorandum or articles of association in such a way that they may, if this section remains, go outside the object which we have here discussed, we would be giving the Ministers carte blanche—we would be giving them the right to do anything they like in regard to the purposes of the company.
I know the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that the objects of the company will not go outside the scope provided for under this Bill, but I do not think that he can have any objection to providing that no alteration of the memorandum and articles of association can be made unless with the consent and approval of the Dáil and Seanad.
Mr. Lynch
I think the House should remember that the original memorandum will be drawn up without any examination by either House of the Oireachtas. The company does not require any approval of the original memorandum and, therefore, I suggest that it is not logical that the House or both Houses should have power to examine and approve of any amendment or alteration in the memorandum and articles of association.
Secondly, I think it would not be a very practical way in which to operate the company if every little alteration in policy which might involve a change in the memorandum would have to be brought into the Oireachtas and discussed at length. Each of the company's directors will be the agents of the MInister and will be expected to carry out the intentions that this Bill envisages. As well as that, as the Senator rightly observed, they cannot go outside their terms of reference as contained in the Bill, in any case, and I think that is the greatest safeguard that we have.
Section 11 of the Bill which is a licensing section authorises the company to go into some other line of production. That is in my opinion a safeguard that the objects of the company will not be altered in any material way by an alteration of the memorandum as is envisaged by the section here.
Finally, I think it ought to be remembered that the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance are duly elected members of the Oireachtas and duly elected members of the Government and therefore I take it that it must be agreed that they are responsible men and will carry out their duties in a responsible fashion. Therefore I suggest to the Senator that the acceptance of this amendment will make the operations of the company unduly cumbersome and it certainly would not be a practical way in which to operate the company and carry out its functions. Therefore I do not propose to accept this amendment.
Having heard the Parliamentary Secretary, I shall not press the amendment. However, I feel that I must say this. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that we shall not see the memorandum which will be prepared on the passing of this Bill.
Mr. Lynch
Not as a member of the House, but as an ordinary private citizen you will have a right to see it.
The articles of association will be completed by the time we see them or know what is in them but we have been told by the Parliamentary Secretary what will appear in the main in the memorandum and articles of association. We know nothing whatever about anything in the way of alterations on these documents. Having heard the Parliamentary Secretary, I will not press the amendment, but I feel that we are legislating in such a way that we are enabling the Minister and a Government Department to do business about, which we will know nothing until we take up the papers, and we may then find that this company has gone into business which was never contemplated.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9 and 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11
On Section 11, would the Parliamentary Secretary give us some explanation of what is the intention in regard to it?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
There is amendment No. 3 on this section.
I move amendment No. 3.
In sub-section (3) (a), line 23, before "and" to insert "the daily morning newspapers published in the State."
The purpose of this amendment is to see that due notice will be given to persons who would be interested in an enterprise similar to that which would be contemplated by the company.
There is another amendment, No. 4, which reads as follows:—
In sub-section (3), page 4, line 23, after the words "Iris Oifigiúil”, to insert the words “and in at least two daily morning newspapers published in the State”.
It is a Government amendment and is similar to Senator O'Reilly's amendment, and I think we could take the two together.
Mr. Lynch
Amendment No. 4 incorporates the Senator's point.
May I point out that to my mind amendment No. 4 covers the point which Senator O'Reilly is making in amendment No. 3?
Amendment No. 3 is wider than amendment No. 4, but the Senator may be satisfied with it.
I am dealing with the two amendments together. It is provided in the section that notice will be published in Iris Oifigiúil. I mentioned on the Second Stage of the Bill that Iris Oifigiúil is a journal unknown outside the offices of newspaper editors, Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and solicitors. It is a document which is very rarely, if ever, seen by an ordinary member of the public. I would have thought that the whole idea of giving notice would be to see that members of the public are given notice of what is contemplated by the new company. To say the notice will be given by inserting it in Iris Oifigiúil is just nonsense. Very few people who would be concerned with this would see a notice published in Iris Oifigiúil. I know the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that this section is just the same as the section which appears in this, that or the other Act and that therefore it is good enough for the Grass Meal (Production) Bill, 1953. I say that is no argument. I say due and proper notice should be given of a matter of this kind and due and proper notice can only be given by a proper advertisement of the notice of application in the daily newspapers.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister has accepted the suggestion in his amendment, if you care to read it.
Pardon me, I was not aware of that. I was misled by the fact that my name was on the amendment immediately following it. I am sorry for taking up the time of the HOuse. The Minister's amendment is quite satisfactory.
Amendment No. 3, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 agreed to.
Amendment Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.
I move amendment No. 7:—
To delete sub-section (4).
I put down this amendment to get an idea from the Parliamentary Secretary as to what situation or what possibilities he contemplated in connection with this sub-section.
Mr. Lynch
I cannot say what circumstances are contemplated but I can assure the Senator that the sub-section is inserted specifically in the interests of the existing companies, which are producing the commodities which might be produced by the company we are proposing to set up here. It is entirely in the interests of the existing company, if any.
Very good, I do not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I would like some more information as to what is contemplated under the section. Somebody must have some idea of what further developments will take place at some particular time. The section also deals, of course, with feeding stuffs and fertilisers. But this will give authority to go into a type of production different from anything we heard of in the Second Reading or stated in the Bill or, indeed, anything that is in the memorandum or articles of association, I presume, I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what exactly is contemplated under the section. While I can visualise the possibilities of the utilisation of grass meal or the treatment of it in a new way to enable the production of a new type of feeding stuff, I would like to have some information from the Parliamentary Secretary as to what exactly he is seeking.
The question of obtaining meal from seaweed was raised some place else; what other developments are planned? This scheme can really be a very good scheme. I see no reason why it should not be a profitable enterprise, if the company is properly equipped—and by that, I mean, in the technical and, indeed, in every sense. I think that is very important. I want to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that before there is any thought of branching into by-ways or blossoming out into new sorts of activities not contemplated at the moment, it would be much better to stick to the original idea of the Bill and go right ahead with that. Naturally in this area there may be many people with bright ideas of new things that might be or should be attempted by this company. My views on that would be to stick to the road clear before you which other people have marked out and where experimental work has been proved a success such as in the Gowla Bog of Comhlucht Siúicre Eireann Teo. If you do that, you may be able to do the other things later on. What I want to know is why Section 11 was put in at all.
There is just one small point I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with. Sub-section (3) (a) will now read:"...cause notice of his intention to be published in the Iris Oifigiúil and in at least two daily morning newspapers published in the State...” and sub-section (b) goes on to say “...any person may, within a specified period (not being less than 30 days after the date of the Iris Oifigiúil containing the notice)...” There is a possibility there that if there was any big difference of time between the publication of the notice in Iris Oifigiúil and its publication in two daily newspapers, which as Senator O'Reilly rightly pointed out would be far more widely read by the public than Iris Oifigiúil, the interests of the people to be protected here might be jeopardised.
For instance, the section mentions a period not less than 30 days. If publication appeared in Iris Oifigiúil on the 1st of March, and through some mischance did not appear in the two daily newspapers until the 15th March, the time set out here would date from the publication of the Iris Oifigiúil, not from the time the advertisement became properly and publicly known as a result of publication in the daily newspapers. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary that when this is put into operation there be no time lag between publication in Iris Oifigiúil and publication in the morning newspapers.
If I interpret correctly what is in Senator Baxter's mind it is that, while the production of grass meal is a sensible and practical proposition, the production of seaweed meal is not in the same category. I felt like that too until I read the morning's Press about a seaweed factory in the Orkney Islands which has sent out the first boatload of its seaweed meal. It occurred to me that if they are able to do it we should be able to do it also. I do not know if I have diagnosed it correctly but I think that is what was in Senator Baxter's mind. He spoke last week about seaweed meal and did not think it was in the same strain as grass meal.
Mr. Lynch
In regard to the point raised by Senator Hearne, the maximum difference there could be between an issue of Iris Oifigiúil and the daily newspapers would be four days. Iris Oifigiúil is published twice a week and newspaper publication would either coincide with it or precede it. The sub-section provides for 30 days after the date of publication in Iris Oifigiúil and I do not think there is any cause for concern there. It might easily have been provided in the Bill that 21 days' notice was sufficient; even with 26 days such notice would be sufficient to make people interested in the production of the commodity aware of the Minister's intention.
Regarding Senator Baxter's point and that raised by Senator O'Callaghan, the initial undertaking of the proposed company will be to grow grass and dry it and produce grass meal which is a feeding stuff. It was suggested to me in the course of the preliminary discussion on the preparation of this Bill that there was also a valuable commodity, seaweed meal, which we were not producing at all or, at least, to anything like a sufficient extent in the country. That matter was looked into and it appeared that the reason for non-production to a sufficient extent was the absence of a suitable organisation located at a point where the economic production of seaweed meal could be done. It has been suggested to me that the seaweed is available, that the equipment which this company will have acquired for the production of grass meal will also be suitable for the drying of seaweed for the production of seaweed meal. Inasmuch as I am advised that there is plenty of scope for it, this section is purely an enabling section. It may be that the company will never have anything to do with seaweed meal. They may find it unprofitable or they may find it is already produced to a sufficient extent.
On the other hand there may be other forms of fertilisers or animal feeding stuffs that could be grown or made available by growing and processing on the bog. This is purely an enabling section. The Minister's licence can only be given in certain circumstances and then only after application by the company. Even if the company did market such a commodity as seaweed meal, I do not think it would in any way interfere with their main objects; it would be purely complementary to the work they would have undertaken under the terms of the Bill as it exists at present.
Speaking for myself, I think it is a desirable section in case something would turn up that the company would find it possible to produce. I had in mind in particular the production of seaweed meal. Senators know that seaweed is used as a fertiliser to a large extent. As Senator O'Callaghan pointed out, it is also used for processing into seaweed meal as an animal feeding stuff. There may be scope for further processing and, if there is, this section will give the power to go ahead.
I am satisfied with the explanation. You cannot grow grass all the year round unless you make new discoveries in Bangor Erris. You may lengthen the season. There will be a period of the year when supplies will not be available and it may be that you could utilise this plant. I do not know what supplies of seaweed are available along the coast there. What is in my mind, and I would like to impress it upon the Parliamentary Secretary, is that if you get a company going on this project and then try to turn their minds to too many activities at the same time, dividing their energies, you will not get the best out of this enterprise.
What the Parliamentary Secretary has undertaken demands concentrated effort. It demands the application of technical knowledge and science and that is something you will persevere in only with energy and enthusiasm and you must completely concentrate upon it. I have no objection to widening the scope under this section but I feel that if the Parliamentary Secretary is there he is responsible for this enterprise and he will find after a little that the company will have their hands full with grass without fishing for weeds in the sea.
Mr. Lynch
I would like to allay any suspicion the Senator may have.
He will agree that if there is equipment which might be idle for portion of the year and if it could be put to some other use it would be a good thing. Since the production of seaweed meal could not possibly interfere with the drainage and cultivation of bog I do not think there should be any fears in his mind.
The Senator knows and western Senators must know that seaweed meal is gathered by people around the coast and is collected by agents of those who dry it at the present time. In that way while the primary operation of the board will not be interfered with it may give an opportunity of providing employment elsewhere as part of a process which will be ancillary and complimentary to the main process without in any way interfering with it.
Is there anything in the Bill to allow the company to buy and sell cattle and live stock generally? That would be an important matter— the grazing of land with sheep and live animals.
Mr. Lynch
That was dealt with in an amendment by Senator Baxter and he accepted my assurance.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 12 to 24, inclusive, and the Title, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Agreed to take remaining stages now.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
Ordered: That the Bill, as amended, be returned to the Dáil.
