Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 6 Jun 1968

Vol. 65 No. 3

Motor Vehicles (Registration of Importers) Bill, 1967: Committee Stage (resumed) and Final Stages.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 3:

Before subsection (2) to insert a new subsection as follows:—

"( ) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section the Minister may impose conditions relating to—

(a) the quality of manufactured motor vehicles,

(b) prohibiting the issue of, or the publication of, or requiring the signature of any purchaser to, a document which is misleading or likely to mislead as to the conditions upon which the motor vehicle is being sold,

(c) the rectification of faults in manufacture or assembly of a motor vehicle including the payment of compensation to the owner of the vehicle or to a person buying same on hire purchase."

—(Mr. O'Quigley.)

Mr. Colley

I think I should say, first of all, that I agree with Senator O'Quigley that it is important that the widest possible measure of publicity should be given to the fact that the form of guarantee offered in the case of many motor cars is, in fact, a reduction in the legal rights of the purchaser and that the purchaser who fails to sign the form is in a stronger legal position than the one who signs the form. It is important that that should be more widely known.

I also feel that there is, perhaps, some justification for some of the complaints he has made about some motor vehicles but I would not like it to be thought that this is generally true. I do not think it is, nor, indeed, do the complaints which he made relate solely to motor vehicles. They can relate to many other items and in this connection I did, about a year ago, instruct my Department to undertake a fairly wide programme of work in the field of consumer protection which, of course, includes the kind of thing about which Senator O'Quigley was speaking.

However, I want to make it clear that the purpose of this present Bill is quite specific and limited and that is to provide a statutory basis on which to implement the arrangements agreed between myself and the manufacturers and assemblers of British vehicles and I feel that the insertion of this amendment, which is solely related to consumer protection, would be quite inappropriate to this Bill and, indeed, might, because of its inappropriateness, lead to difficulties in implementing the scheme which is based on general agreement and goodwill. I do not think that it would be to the advantage of the scheme to single out motor vehicles particularly for this particular treatment and that the improvements which we do admittedly require in the field of consumer protection should be applied on a much wider basis.

For these reasons I find myself unable to accept that this amendment would be an advantage to the present Bill. Indeed, I think it might be a serious disadvantage.

Mr. Nash

I can quite appreciate the Minister's problem in so far as this Bill is concerned but I do think that I should stress that the amount of abuse that is caused by reason of this guarantee is very widespread. The assemblers seem to act with very little conscience whatsoever. Worse still, the assemblers of most cars have agents and a purchase by any garage must be made ultimately through an agent of the assemblers. These agents, in order to ensure that these guarantees are signed, have themselves to enter into a contract with the assemblers in which they have no rights whatsoever or no right of protection against the assemblers if the goods turn out to be defective. You may have a pin loose in a car as I know happened recently to a client of mine. The steering came off in his hand and he wrecked the car. The only protection, and the only claim he could have, was for the replacement of the pin and for that only the price of the pin.

The small garage man who is an agent for anybody has to buy, no matter what the make of the car is, through an agent for that make of car. The agent in turn gets it from the assemblers. The agent has entered into a contract with the assemblers. To protect himself he will allow those terms to the garage. Therefore, if a consumer refuses to sign the guarantee form his claim very often is against a small garage who are no mark whatever.

You have only a limited number of motor assemblers in this country and without exception every one of them follows the same policy. It is practically an agreement of restraint of trading. If the Minister, by reason of the special implications of this Bill, cannot find his way to introduce it as an amendment here I would ask him in the interests of the people in this country to look into this very carefully because the price of a car, especially a new one is a very substantial portion of the capital savings or the capital income of any family today.

Mr. O'Quigley

I have mixed feelings about the Minister's reply to the arguments I made. The Minister has, in fact, conceded, I think, that what I am saying is true, that there is need for the protection of the purchasers of motor cars. He may give that a grandiose title of consumer protection and say that there is need for consumer protection. There is need for it and, in fact, the only reason why he would not accept this amendment was that it would, perhaps, not tie in with agreements he has negotiated with the car assemblers and manufacturers in this country, and which the Bill is designed to give effect to.

If the Minister were to say: "It is not entirely absolute on this Bill to impose those conditions but I will introduce legislation along those lines" it certainly would have achieved a great deal. The Minister for Industry and Commerce recently in the Dáil said that what he wanted to see, and I think I am quoting him correctly, was a strong and virile Opposition. I would be quite happy if the Minister were to make available facilities from his Department to sponsor a Bill dealing with this area of commercial activity.

Mind you, the total amount of money spent on the purchase of cars in this country in any one year must be several times the amount of money that is spent, say, on the purchase of dishwashers, fridges, television sets and so on. Therefore, because there is so much money involved, it is absolutely necessary and desirable that the purchasers of those goods should be protected. The Minister says, and I am glad to see he lends the authority of his office to this, that the guarantee document, not fraudulent from the point of facturers is, in fact, a fraudulent document, not fraudulent from the point of view of the criminal law but certainly fraudulent as we all understand it. I do not want to put into the Minister's mouth that he says that it is fraudulent but what the Minister lends his authority to is that the signing of this document gives the people who sign it a great deal less protection than they are entitled to under the Sale of Goods Act or, if they are buying a car on hire purchase, less protection than under the Hire Purchase Act, 1946.

I hope this goes forth from this place and that the people around the country realise that they should stop signing this document. I hope the Press and the other media will give the utmost publicity to that. I do not understand why the Minister is so reluctant to accept this amendment because what he would be putting in it is something that all manufacturers and assemblers of motor cars in this country would readily subscribe to. I am sure they all profess that they produce motor vehicles of quality. I would ask the Minister to impose certain conditions relating to quality of manufactured motor vehicles. I am sure they would all agree with this and would say that Irish manufacturers, Irish assemblers and the skill of Irish workers produce excellent cars. While assemblers, let it be said, and I do not want to repeat Senator Nash's experience, in turn I am sure are bound by certain stipulations in contracts with the British, the parent companies, the only way in which we can get over the garage man's difficulties, the agent's difficulties, the assembler's difficulties, is to have it stipulated that we are not going to put up with that kind of thing in this country. If the Irish market is of any value to the British manufacturers, then the Irish Government should clearly indicate in its legislation that it will not stand for these things, that it will prohibit them; and thereafter we will find that French and Italian manufacturers in order to comply with the local law will rearrange their contracts accordingly.

I see no reason why the Minister should not readily get the consent of the manufacturers to prohibit the issue of, or the publication of, or requiring the signature of any purchaser to, a document which is misleading or is likely to mislead. That is to guarantee. All people might not be familiar with section 14, not even some lawyers. The Minister agrees with it because they have less protection than they would otherwise have. I cannot see if the Minister has discussion with motor manufacturers that he would not get their agreement to dropping this. He would get the support of the Irish consumers and the consumers in other countries with appropriate guarantees and warranties for the goods they sold.

I do not propose to delay the House any longer on this amendment except to say that I hope the Minister, if some of us should consider sponsoring the Bill, might consider providing some assistance—and this might annoy Senator Ó Maoláin who sometimes regards it as banshee wailing. Unfortunately, we have not sufficient time to do the research that is necessary into this kind of document which one would like to. I would be glad to know that the Minister's Department or the Department of Justice would lend assistance to Senators to get at this evil, sharp practice that is going on.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

At this late stage I should like to support what has been said by Senator Nash and Senator O'Quigley and to appeal to the Minister, as we are on the Committee Stage, to reconsider this matter and possibly introduce something common to the salient point on Report Stage.

I feel strongly that the Minister would be wise to meet this point, at least to some extent. He has suggested that this would be an example of consumer protection and that that in a sense is out of place in this Bill but the consumers do, in fact, offer a lot of protection to the motor assemblers and it does not seem unjust that the Minister under this Bill should be given power to issue instructions, to offer consumer protection to the assemblers. This is to be recommended by the very reason of the protection they are giving to the assemblers.

On another occasion the opposite view was taken by another Minister who contended that we would be wrong to hold up the giving of pensions to the widows of Members of this House simply because all the widows of State servants could not get them and the suggestion was that we should proceed piecemeal. I see no reason why we should not proceed piecemeal here. This is a good argument because it is widely needed for consumer protection. I do not see why we could not give consumer protection under this Bill to the consumers of motor vehicles.

The second point I should like to make is that the amendment proposed may replace those relating to three aspects. It is as permissive. It is not mandatory and I would appeal to the Minister not to resist the granting to him under this Bill of discretionary powers. If he reflects on this he will see that the resisting of the granting to him of discretionary powers is either reflecting on his own powers of discretion, or else showing the lack of confidence in the discretion of his successors. Why should any Minister resist the granting to him of discretionary power in any manner? I stress the point that this is not mandatory. It would be permissive and merely gives the Minister rights, if he thinks fit, in relation to quality of materials, in relation to guarantees and in relation to rectification of faults.

The third point I want to make is in relation to subsection (1) (b) which refers to the giving of an assurance to the Minister of such kind as the Minister considers satisfactory that he will continue to assemble for sale motor vehicles manufactured by that manufacturer to an extent that, in the opinion of the Minister, is satisfactory. Therefore, by this Bill the Minister is being given power to decide at his own discretion the number of vehicles to be manufactured but he is resisting the giving to him of discretionary power as to what quality of vehicles shall be manufactured. I feel that this is not in character either with the type of legislation which we are putting through or, indeed, with the type of legislation which the Minister obviously desires. It is not enough to say we will insist that a certain number of vehicles shall continue to be made unless we are prepared to insist that a certain quality shall simultaneously be considered as desirable and may, if necessary, be disputed by the Minister at his discretion.

For these reasons I would appeal to the Minister at least to promise us that he will look at this before Report Stage and come back and give us the fruit of his reflection. I think the point made by Senator O'Quigley and by those who supported him is very important.

Mr. Rooney

I was about to remark that the protection afforded the motor assemblers is subject to certain conditions and what has been said by the previous Senators is that at least one more condition should be included in those already there which enable the motor assemblers now to benefit from the protection provided.

First of all, we must realise that in those days motor vehicles are almost essential. It cannot be argued that they are non-essential. They are a part now of our daily lives. There are people who use cars for private, social and domestic purposes only, but then most people use them as part of their livelihood even if it is to get them to and from their work. The use of cars, such as in the case of commercial travellers. is part of their business. Therefore, we must regard the car as an essential to modern living. At any rate, it is no longer a non-essential and for that reason it is up to the Minister to ensure that the article provided in this essential sphere should be subject to proper warranties.

The absence of a condition of that nature means that the Minister is condoning defective workmanship because he is not insisting that the suppliers of motor vehicles must acknowledge their responsibilities to supply in proper condition to the people what appears to be an essential article in modern living. Many terrible accidents occur and there is no explanation for them. The result is the loss of three or four lives. It is obvious sometimes that accidents which are not explained have resulted from defects in the assembly of the vehicles concerned—defective workmanship.

I am aware that there is a good system of overseeing, of inspection, associated with assembly work. However, it is not right for assemblers, having employed people to do the necessary supervision, to be allowed to say: "We have employed people to do it, we have paid them to do it and now we are selling the car and not taking further responsibility for the workmanship in that vehicle". Having regard to what some Senators have said in relation to new cars, I agree that there should be a further condition in the warranty or guarantee in relation to workmanship associated with assembly. It is not good enough these days for assemblers and agents completely to wash their hands of responsibility by pointing to some clause in the agreement. I am glad the agreement was mentioned and that it was pointed out it appears to be not worth the paper it is written on as far as the person hoping to get compensation for loss is concerned.

I agree with the suggestion that in return for the measure of protection this Bill will afford to assemblers a further condition should be added to the warranty—what is described as a guarantee—which, if it is read, will be found not to offer very much to the purchaser. In the circumstances when motor vehicles are an essential part of life, the Minister should go a step further in this respect particularly having regard to the measure of protection being afforded to assemblers.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford): Though I agree that Senators O'Quigley and Nash have done a public service in ventilating this matter —it is a matter which should be ventilated—I still feel that because the word “manufacture” has been used so often—I am not quite sure exactly what it means in this context—I thought I should point out from experience that the biggest defect seems to be the human failure in the matter of assembly of any kind. I am convinced that most machine faults are caused not by faults in the machine itself, as such, but by faults in the assembly or maintenance—the human factor, the human failure to do something properly that should be done. That is the real cause of what we are complaining about here.

It makes me feel that while one car may be quite satisfactory, the next car, manufactured from the same parts by the same people, may not be satisfactory because some person or persons may fail to do something properly that they should have done. I can quote an experience as an example. I shall refer to a fairly high-priced car and I have some experience of mechanics— it is a hobby of mine. The mainwire from the self-starter to the ammeter— it supplies the main electrical circuit— had not been tightened properly when the vehicle left the factory. After five years, as a result of sag and other things, a situation arose when the whole electrical system used to cut out for an instant and then cut in again. That sort of thing is brought about by human failure, perhaps to tighten properly one little nut, and it is that sort of thing that assembly always falls down on.

It is rare to find a fault because of faulty parts. That being so, and though I agree the public should be protected, that can be done best through force of public opinion on manufacturers and agents. It is true that if faults which are not serious, minor faults in assembly, sometimes can lead to serious consequences, still the agent has a responsibility to his customers and in the majority of such cases the agent values his business, his customers' goodwill, and makes an honest effort to put right any fault. I knew before today that all the help he gets from the assemblers is the supply of the faulty parts. In such circumstances the agent would incure a loss rather than a profit.

In the long run, we are talking about manufacture and I fear that the term "manufacture" is not wide enough to cover the point because I am satisfied it is the human failure rather than the manufacture that is the cause of the trouble.

It has been said that the Minister should not resist power. In reply to that, I put the proposition that in a democracy Parliament vests only as much power in a Minister as is necessary at any point of time. That is why, when Ministers come in with money Votes in regard to State companies, the Seanad and the Dáil are inclined to give just enough money for the time being. If more money should be voted than is required, then the Minister would not have to come back to the House and the House would not have the opportunity or right of criticism. That is why Parliament adopts that attitude and the Minister, being a democrat, does not want to take any more power than is necessary. It is our experience that it is the abuse of power that causes most of the difficulties in this world.

Mr. Nash

I would say that the arguments put forward by Senator O'Reilly have added strength to the argument put forward that the Minster should adopt, if he can do so, an amendment somewhat in this form. Senator O'Reilly has spoken of an instance where a car was sold with loose wiring which caused the circuits to go off in a split second. Picture that car being driven by a man with his wife and family at 40 or 45 miles an hour at night and the lights going out and the car is crashed with injuries to the driver or his family or to somebody else on the road. He is not covered by insurance because the small print in the insurance policy says that if damage occurs because of a defective vehicle the insurance does not cover that damage.

Such a driver is not covered against the assembler because the assembler has a clause which, in effect, says that the assembler is prohibiting the purchaser of the car from using his normal rights and which also says that it is being sold as a vehicle which is reasonably fit for the purpose for which it is sold. These people are getting a monopoly and if the Minister reserves to himself the discretion which is suggested in the amendment it might be a fair warning to the assemblers not to resist in future claims that are reasonable.

Take the case of a hardworking carpenter who puts his last shilling into buying a new car. In the building of the engine of that car dust or sand is left in the engine block and, as time goes on, that dust goes throught the whole engine. The car may have done less than 2,000 miles and may be a complete wreck and that man could get no satisfaction whatever. An inspector is sent down and it is established what is the root cause of the trouble but the purchaser is told that the assemblers are merely liable to replace a defective part. They offer him a sum to replace the block but then he has to go and himself replace the engine which has been completely destroyed. If the Minister would reserve to himself the right to exercise certain powers if he sees fit it might have a salutary effect on these people.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford): With regard to the instance I have mentioned, since the fault occurred three years after the car was assembled I am not prepared to state that the fault was apparent immediately after assembly. It might have shown up only after two or three years because human faults can develop even after three years.

Mr. Colley

I would like to make it clear again that while there may be some cars produced by Irish assemblers which are defective the majority are not defective. Faults appear in other kinds of goods as well as cars, and cars manufactured in other countries as distinct from being assembled here also reveal serious defects on occasion. There have been a number of instances of serious defects showing up in cars produced direct by manufacturers in other countries. My Department has embarked at my request on a wide programme of research into the whole question of consumer protection and that includes the question of warranties which is being got at in this amendment. I am not unaware of some of the abuses which sometimes occur and of the necessity to take legislative steps to deal with these abuses.

I must not have put it through to the House on the last occasion that my objection to the acceptance of the amendment is not because it does not fit very well but because this Bill is designed to provide a statutory basis to implement a scheme arrived at after considerable negotiations with a number of parties. The acceptance of this amendment which is directed solely at the motor vehicle industry could upset the operation of that scheme. The important item is to get that scheme operating and to provide a statutory framework upon which it can operate.

Senators will remember from the Second Reading debate that this scheme is of considerable importance to the whole motor assembly industry and to the workers employed in it and I do not wish to prejudice the operation of that scheme in any way. The fact that this form of consumer protection would be directed solely at this industry could have that effect. I am not saying that there is no necessity for some form of consumer protection in the motor industry but any steps taken in this direction should relate not only to the motor industry but to many other items produced both inside and outside the county. The acceptance of the amendment could prejudice the operation of a scheme which is vital to the future of the industry.

Mr. O'Quigley

I can well appreciate the Minister's difficulty in having negotiated a particular scheme with the motor assemblers and then bringing in a Bill which is different from what he undertook to bring in but it is also important to know and remember that in this country Parliament is still supreme. Whatever a Minister may negotiate and agree with others he has to get that accepted by Parliament and in this case there is a certain reluctance to let the scheme go through without imposing these further conditions which the manufacturers and assemblers ought not to oppose because they would profess themselves that they manufacture vehicles of quality and that they do not mislead and so on. I can see the Minister's personal difficulty having given an undertaking in seeking then or agreeing to get something else, in having something else added on to what he has agreed upon. I could only wish that the situation were such that one could call a division on an amendment like this and let members of all Parties agreed to such an amendment and that then it would be made manifest to the manufacturing industry of this country that the people's representatives have something to say about what is going on, but from past experience I do not think that it would be a useful exercise to call such a division.

The Minister, of course, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, is undoubtedly concerned, as we all are, to protect the present industry and to protect the jobs of the workers involved in it but mind you if people are going to get huffed because they are called upon mere'y to do their duty there is a distance beyond which we ought not to go implicating them and we are very near the borderline here and if people want tomorrow to say: "Right, we will close down our concern," there are ways and means of keeping the concern open and there are the same staff. There might be two or three of the directors who might say: "We will get out, we will not have any more of this. We will take no dictation from the Parliament of Ireland", and the other staff will be glad to remain and to continue the work in exactly the same position with a new board of directors put in by the State. They produce good cars in Russia and Czechoslovakia and in other places, first-class ones and aeroplanes too. I would not have too much concern about the sensitivities of those people.

However, there is no use in proceeding with the matter any further. We have, I hope, sounded a note of warning to the motor industry and I hope other manufacturers as well. I want to say one last thing. The Minister says the majority of cars manufactured in this country are of good quality. I want to say to the Minister that there is one very popular make of car in this country which is manufactured with an inherent defect in the steering mechanism and that cannot be denied and that is permitted. We are going to permit that. There is one particular set of assemblers, perhaps it is not the fault of the assemblers here because that is what they get from the designers in Britain.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford): It is bad design of a part of them.

Mr. O'Quigley

It is an inherent defect in the steering mechanism and the manufacturers admit it in that they have put into every garage a machine to correct the fault which is not present in other cars. That is the kind of thing that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should be concerned about because I know that the public who have to put up with that kind of thing and the garage proprietors who are constantly bothered about it are all concerned about it. That is the kind of thing I hoped the Minister would deal with on this amendment.

Mr. Nash

There is one point I want to draw to the Minister's attention. He said that this matter arises in consumer protection generally. The only item, so far as I am aware, that any consumer buys in which the protection of the Sale of Goods Act is expressly excluded is his motor car. The farmer who buys a frigidaire, a washing machine, plough, all the other machinery, every one of those items with the exception of his motor car——

Mr. O'Quigley

And tractor.

Mr. Nash

Possibly also his tractor, I do not know. There is certainly not more than the tractor and the motor car. Every other item that he buys has an implied warranty that it is reasonably fit for the purpose for which it is sold but with his motor car the contrary is the case. He has entered into a contract, no matter how defective the vehicle may be, no matter how incompetently it may be assembled, no matter what loss he may incur as a result, no matter how careless an assembler may have been, that he has no claim, no right whatsoever. This is the only item and, therefore, it is in a very peculiar and strange position in so far as goods generally are concerned. I would like the Minister if he cannot put it into the framework of this Bill to take an early step to reserve to himself at least by way of warning to those people the right to insist that as they have a special monopoly in this country given to them by the taxpayers, the taxpayers are paying, and the taxpayers at least are entitled to the normal protection which they get on the purchase of any other item of goods.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. O'Quigley

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4 to delete subsection (5).

The reason I am putting this in is that it seems to me that this is a clumsy way of defining "assembler" by reference to the Imposition of Duties (No. 159) (customs Duties and Form of Customs Tariffs) Order, 1966. It is a clumsy way of defining "assembler" particularly as I am sure the Imposition of Duties (No. 159) (Customs Duties and Form of Customs Tariff) Order, 1966, is always liable to repeal or amend and if it is, then our definition of "assembler" by reference to an existing statutory instrument would be changed and we would know nothing about it. I rather think that this particular order is one that is not even laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas to be annulled within 21 days. Consequently, I would delete that particular section and invite the Minister to bring in a proper definition of "assembler".

Mr. Colley

The purpose of this form of definition is to relate the definition of "assembler" to the actual work of assembling, that is to the degree of assembly which takes place. Obviously, an assembler who performs only a low level of work is not complying with the spirit of the agreement negotiated here and I would require power as Minister to have him removed from the register unless he were doing the level of assembly, at least, which was attained in 1965. The question of the degree of assembly relates to the order which is mentioned here. This determines what constitutes a CKD pack—a completely knocked-down pack—which qualifies for import duty at 17½ per cent now as against 75 per cent on a fully built-up vehicle. It is true that the CKD rules may be changed from time to time. This depends on certain developments in the trade, technological developments and otherwise, but the only practical method by which we can define "assembler" and at the same time ensure that an "assembler" within the meaning of this Act is one who is doing the degree of work that we require, is to define the term by relation to whether or not they qualify for the rate of duty at 17½ per cent, as it is at the moment, or whatever rate is from time to time appropriate to a CKD pack. I admit it may seem rather cumbersome but it seems the only practical way of ensuring that the whole object of this scheme is carried out and that the degree of assembly is maintained.

Mr. O'Quigley

I would have been glad if the Minister gave information, although he may not have it, as to whether or not that particular order is laid before each House of the Oireachtas and may be nullified.

Mr. Colley

I do not think it is required to be laid before the House but I think it is subject to confirmation in a Bill which is brought before the House with other orders.

Mr. O'Quigley

I will not go into this whole matter now but it is a bit much to ask us to enact a section when we do not even know whether the order can be repealed simply by the Minister, or in the case of the Revenue Commissioners, by the Minister for Finance or the Government. We do not even know whether it is laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas as some of the regulations which will be made under this Bill will be required to be laid under section 8. I will not press the matter further. We can have a look at it, for want of a better phrase, between now and Report Stage.

Mr. Rooney

While we are on this, I should like in regard to this 17½ per cent CKD arrangement to ask if it is defined in law what CKD really means. There are often jokes about qualifying for CKD by just putting some loose nuts together or taking off one specific part and that is what it amounts to. You could call it CKD if you take off one particular part because there are a few loose nuts on it. I am interested to know from the Minister whether CKD is rigidly defined in order that they will qualify for this 17½ per cent?

Mr. Colley

Yes, and that is why the definition of assembly is done in this way by reference to the order which defines CKD. The whole point of this is to ensure that you do not qualify by merely putting a few nuts and bolts together. The whole point is to ensure the actual work of assembly is of a high level and is in accordance with CKD requirements which, as I say, may change from time to time.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. O'Quigley

An assembler is defined not only by reference to this customs order but apparently a person will be an assembler in a case where the Minister so authorises under paragraph (b) of subsection (5). I wonder if the Minister would be good enough to indicate any case where it is envisaged that he may authorise the importation of vehicles in a form which is not the form provided for in paragraph (a). Apparently vehicles will be regarded as CKD if they comply with the provision of paragraph (a) but there may be other cases.

Mr. Colley

As an example there is one existing case where it is envisaged that they will be from the outset of the scheme registered under paragraph (b). They are people who are concessionaires for an expensive type of car which at present, and for a long time, they have been importing. The chassis of one of the models comes in CKD and the body comes in FBU on payment of, I think, a 64 per cent rate of duty. This has been the practice in the past. They will continue that and because that has been so they will almost certainly be allowed in under paragraph (b). They will still continue to pay the FBU rate of duty on the body.

Mr. O'Quigley

I take it that this is part of the agreement the Minister has made with those people?

Mr. Colley

Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Mr. O'Quigley

I move amendment No. 5:

In subsection (1), to delete lines 21 to 23 inclusive and substitute the following:—

"the Minister shall cause an inquiry to be held into such breach of assurance or failure to comply with a condition by a practising barrister or solicitor of not less than ten years standing or by a mechanical and electrical engineer of not less than ten years practice and the Minister shall consider the report of such persons conducting such inquiry."

I think I should discuss amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together as they are cognate. I am sure from what I said earlier this morning that some people might think I had an edge against assemblers of motor cars. I am happy to be in a position in moving those amendments to dispel that view that might wrongly be formed that I had something against manufacturers of motor cars. I have not. All I am concerned with is the protection of the consumer. Here I am glad to say something about protection for the motor assemblers who are going to find themselves on the register.

I am sure we would all agree that the Livestock Marts Bill was not a very liberal measure and on that particular occasion the Minister for Agriculture, under pressure from the Press and from members of the Dáil, interested organisations and other people thought well at the end of the day to insert in the Livestock Marts Bill a provision whereby if the licence which somebody had to have a livestock mart was being withdrawn that there would be a limited form of inquiry.

None of us who opposed that particular Bill or had criticism to make of it thought that the Minister's impartiality in that kind of inquiry was anything like sufficient to meet what are the ordinary concepts of fair play. At any rate, there was a provision put into the Bill, which I think would be regarded as very authoritarian, to provide that provided a licence was withdrawn there should be some kind of inquiry.

Here, in this particular Bill, people will only be permitted to engage in the business of motor assembly if they have a licence from the Minister and their names are registered in the register maintained by the Revenue Commissioners. Then the Minister, who gives the licences, will be the judge and jury in determining whether or not there has been a breach of any assurance under section 3 of the Act or a breach of any condition imposed by the Minister at the time of giving the licences.

There is no right of appeal from the Minister's decision. That is quite unsatisfactory. I am not going to worry the House now with all the grounds for opposing that kind of arbitrary determination by a Minister of State as to whether or not a particular person shall continue to engage in a particular form of industrial or commercial activity. I said before on Second Stage that I regarded it as highly undesirable that persons engaged in manufacture and distribution in this country under licence should always feel under a particular obligation to a Minister of State. That is the kind of thing which can lead to abuse even with the best intentioned industrialists and with the best intentioned and most upright Ministers of State. We ought not to expose either to that kind of thing.

I am suggesting, for that reason, in this amendment before the Minister withdraws a licence and before he satisfies himself that, in fact, there has been a breach of an assurance given to him or a breach of conditions he has always some form of impartial inquiry and not by a member of his own Department, because that would be too closely associated with the Minister and, therefore, does not give the appearance of justice and in practice may not be able to do the kind of justice the person would like done. It does not give the appearance of justice and I propose that instead we should have an inquiry by some person—a barrister, a solicitor or a mechanical engineer, or any other person the Minister would think appropriate— who would inquire whether the assurance had been properly complied with and then make a report to the Minister who could make up his mind on the basis of that report whether he should withdraw the licence or not. Following the precedent of the Marts Bill, for example, I am probably pushing an open door in order to get the Minister to accept the amendment.

Mr. Colley

First of all, I think I should say that one of the things envisaged here is an inquiry into the event of a breach of an undertaking to comply with the type of condition imposed at the time of registration. Such a case would only arise in the case of the import of vehicles and the only condition there would be to determine the question of fact, whether or not the registered owner had imported vehicles at the rate he was entitled to import under the scheme. It would be purely factual. Secondly, the proposed deletion of subsection (2)—as we are taking the two amendments together I think I should refer to this—would not be feasible even if the idea of an inquiry were not acceptable. This subsection would enable the Minister to see that adjustments would be made by the assemblers where the question of franchise takes place.

I must admit I disagree with Senator O'Quigley. First of all, the assemblers have already furnished, from certain information available to me and my Department, information in regard to their activities in the base period, the numbers and types of vehicles produced, the level of employment, the number of man hours worked and the utilisation of plant capacity but apart from taking these factors into account the Minister will have to have regard to the general basis of the motor vehicle market, the position as regards market demand for the vehicle produced and any question of the extent to which they were importing FBU vehicles; in other words, whether they were in excess of FBU vehicles, running down the assemblers' operation. There could be a fall in the demand for a particular model and a number of other factors could come into account. One of the things that became clear in negotiations was that there was no single criterion which could be applied to determine whether assemblers were complying with this condition. One could not take the volume of employment, or solely the number of vehicles produced, or solely the utilisation of plant capacity.

There are a number of reasons for this and I do not propose to worry the House with them because you cannot take one of these. All of them must be taken into account. In doing that it seems to me that the Minister is the most appropriate person to determine this. After all, in practical terms what we are doing is dealing with taking somebody off the register and, while this would not be the end of the world for him, it would be very serious. If his registration were withdrawn he can continue to assemble but he would lose the rights to import those fully built-up vehicles to which he is entitled under the scheme. It would be of some seriousness and would undoubtedly, if the Minister were to operate this capriciously, leave a great deal of public agitation and public exposure involved in the decision. No Minister for Industry and Commerce will enter lightly into any such decision even if he wants to. I do not think he could afford to do it.

I do not accept that any barrister, or solicitor or engineer of ten years, or 20 years, or 30 years standing will be in a better position to judge this situation than whoever the Minister for Industry and Commerce is, nor do I accept that it is necessary that there should be an appearance of impartiality in his case. What would happen if you had somebody of that nature is that he would be in a much less able position to judge the situation than the Minister for Industry and Commerce and, secondly, the question of impartiality implies that a Minister for Industry and Commerce at some stage in the future is likely to exercise this discretion vested in him capriciously or maliciously.

I cannot see any possibility of this happening, of any Minister wanting to do that, or, if he did, getting away with it. The practical circumstances which would arise in this case would preclude this. In fact, it seems to me that there is a much greater danger that because of the practical feature that would arise a Minister for Industry and Commerce might tend to lean over backwards and not withdraw a registration when he ought to do so. The danger is much more in that direction than the other way because of the consequences of his withdrawing registration.

For all of these reasons I find myself quite unable to agree with these amendments and I feel that Senator O'Quigley really can get carried away too far in his theory in this regard and that he should have regard to the practical situation which would arise in the event of a decision to withdraw registration from an assembler.

I might also add with regard to the situation whereby the decision as to whether or not an assembler was complying with the terms of the scheme that the decision in that case being left to the Minister is a feature which was worked out in negotiations with a great deal of discussion as to the criteria which would be involved, and it is quite clear that none of the assemblers has any of the fears expressed by Senator O'Quigley that I, or my successors, would exercise this right capriciously because they know that is in practice what is involved.

It would not be possible for a Minister to do this and I would surmise that they would not thank this House for substituting in such circumstances a solicitor, or a barrister or an engineer of not less than ten years standing for the Minister for Industry and Commerce. My impression from the negotiations would be that they feel that the whole circumstances surrounding these negotiations are known in the Department of Industry and Commerce and understood, and that if there is to be a fair deal to be given to everybody concerned it is more likely to be given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce who knows the whole background which led up to the negotiations.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Minister does not see things as I do and he thinks that no Minister would act capriciously to do these dreadful things that might come on motor assemblers. My memory of long distance events and short distance events is quite good. I recall within the last two years that we had two Ministers for Industry and Commerce who when history comes to be written—and if anybody cares to read newspaper editorials—capriciously and in public opinion refused to do what people said they ought to do.

Mr. Colley

A Minister for Agriculture?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Nonsense; the Minister for Industry and Commerce never refused to do such things.

Mr. Colley

The Senator is now going off on another tack I think.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Minister says they would not get away with it.

Mr. Colley

Because they could justify what they were or were not doing.

Mr. O'Quigley

They have done it and they are doing it at the moment.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

There are two sides to that.

Mr. O'Quigley

That is what happened in the teeth of public opinion and against a large section of the community—two Ministers for Agriculture acted capriciously and refused to talk.

Mr. Yeats

That is what the Senator thinks.

An Cathaoirleach

Can we keep to the Minister for Industry and Commerce?

Mr. O'Quigley

I do not like to associate him personally with what went on recently. I am trying to conclude the debate and Senators are not assisting me or the Minister. What the Minister has had to say about Ministers not acting capriciously falls flat as an argument against these amendments in the light of experience. Furthermore, the rest of the Minister's argument was taken up with references to fluctuations in demand, in taste, in the market and so on. He said the motor assembly industry is changing. I am concerned about the point at which a motor assembler can be struck off the register, where the fate of the assembler is finally to be determined. That is where the inquiry should be allowed and the person holding the inquiry can draw the assistance of the Minister's officials. I do not suggest that the power of decision will be in the hands of the inquisitor. He will make a report to the Minister. We all know things happen in Departments, and Ministers know nothing about them. Therefore, if an assembler was in danger of being struck off he should be in a position to talk to somebody else and to say: "You never heard about this or that." However, the Minister is quite clearly against this, which I think would be a democratic way of dealing with motor assemblers. I am very glad to try to do something to protect them now as I did earlier to protect the consumers of motor cars.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 6 not moved.

Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill".

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

In subsection (1) of this section it is stated that the Minister may, whenever he thinks fit, authorise a registered person to import a motor vehicle of a make or type not entered in the register. I am a little disturbed by this request for what in the margin is called "power of Minister". This means that without any need to justify the action to anybody or without having to show reason, the Minister can whenever he thinks fit make an exception on behalf of some registered person to import a vehicle of a type not entered in the register. I am not satisfied we ought to give the Minister this power. I do not see the necessity to enable the Minister to drive a certain number of horse power through the Act.

Mr. Colley

I am in some difficulty here. This is necessary to cover what admittedly would be exceptional circumstances. I should explain to the House that a consultative committee of manufacturers' and assemblers' representatives have been set up to assist in the operation of this agreed scheme. It is possible that the trade might be satisfied that a particular vehicle should be admitted as an exceptional case, but without this subsection the Minister would not have power to permit the registered importer to bring in the vehicle without conferring the status of full registration on that particular make of vehicle. The register applies to the vehicle rather than to the assembler. It is really designed to deal with that situation and, in fact, it is proposed to use this power only after referring the case to the consultative committee to which I have referred.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

This seems to me to be an entirely satisfactory reply by the Minister and I have every confidence in the Minister carrying it out but the Bill does not require that he shall consult anybody. I would feel less disturbed if the subsection had stated "after consultation". I am reluctant to give any Minister complete discretionary power. The charge could be made—not against the present Minister—against some Minister who shall be nameless, past or present, that he was doing something on behalf of a pal and I do not think we should give to any Minister even the theoretical power to break the rules. We are laying down the rules for everybody else. Will the Minister consider introducing on Report Stage some mention of the necessity for consultation or agreement?

Mr. Colley

The Senator will appreciate that there is not any reference in the Bill to the consultative committee. The committee have been set up informally so far and have been operating, but to make reference to them here would give them some form of statutory existence. It would necessitate drafting and the laying down of rules of procedure which are, in fact, evolving as the committee go along. Personally, I find it impossible to make reference to it in the Bill in these circumstances. That is the only reason I hesitate about it.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

The Minister's reply satisfied me in relation to him but my doubts remain in relation to possible successors, not necessarily of his own Party.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 7 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

TITLE.

Question proposed: "That the Title be the Title to the Bill".

Mr. O'Quigley

May I draw the attention of the House to the difference in the Short Title, which is An Bille Um Motar-Fheithicli (Allmhaireoiri A Chlaru), 1967. Should it not be "a Chlárú"?

Mr. Colley

Does the Senator mean the "a" should carry a fada?

Mr. O'Quigley

Unless the Irish is changing still more rapidly.

Mr. Colley

It is probably because the letters are capitals. On the same basis, the "u" at the end should have a síneadh.

Question put and agreed to.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Would there be any objection to taking the remaining Stages now?

Mr. O'Quigley

I would be anxious to facilitate the Minister but I feel there are some amendments which would need further consideration. However, we are agreeable to take the remaining Stages now.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

Business suspended at 1.12 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.