There are a few queries I wish to raise on this Bill and there are some objections I wish to record in connection with the Bill. In his opening statement the Minister said he was sure that Senators would agree that it is no more than prudent to be in a state of preparedness to deal with a shortage of fuel supplies if the need should arise instead of waiting until an emergency is upon us. Taking that expression of the Minister's hope as being the principle contained in the Bill, there would probably be general agreement with regard to the principle of the Bill. I find myself, having read this Bill in the situation—possibly because I am a lawyer by profession— quite appalled at the manner in which the Government have chosen to put themselves into this state of preparedness.
It is generally bad that the Houses of the Oireachtas should consent without objection to any further increase in a system of legislation by Ministerial order which has become fairly prevalent. This legislation which is proposed to us now depends entirely on a Government order and Ministerial order. Not only does it do that but it provides in effect that the Government order, in the first place, and, secondly, any Ministerial orders to be made following the making of the general Government order, will all be made without consultation with either House of the Oireachtas. It is provided that when the orders have been made they will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and may be annulled by resolution brought in within 21 days.
In legislation which contains some of the very drastic powers which are envisaged in this legislation that procedure is not adequate. The Minister should ensure that any orders that will be made either by the Government or by him, as Minister for Transport and Power, will be brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas before they are made. That would not cause any inconvenience at all to the Government, having regard to the statement we have just heard from the Minister. He has made it quite clear that these orders, or a number of them, are already drafted. Why does he not publish them now? Why does he not, in conjunction with this Bill, let us see the orders, let us know what is in them?
If we look at the Explanatory Memorandum which was circulated with the Bill, we will see that it is made clear—as indeed the Minister, to give him his due, made it clear in his opening statement—that the whole purpose of this Bill is to deal with possible scarcity conditions, possible shortages, which could give rise to difficulties. In the first paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum reference is made to short supply and in the second paragraph reference is made to short-term scarcity.
Throughout the Minister's opening statement that theme was developed. Having regard to the background— and I accept that that is the background to this Bill—I find it somewhat surprising that the powers which can be brought into operation on the making of a Government order will deal not only with the question of short supply but under section 3 of the Bill enable the Minister to prohibit the import of fuels. I could readily understand if power was to be taken to restrict the exportation of fuels which might be required in a situation of emergency as regards short supply. Section 3, subsection (2) of the Bill states that an order made by the Minister under this section
may contain all such incidental or ancillary provisions, including the power to grant or issue such authorisations or licences....
I am sorry, I am wrong there. It is subsection (1), paragraph (b), the second paragraph which provides that the Minister may by order
provide for the control, regulation, restriction or prohibition of the import or the export of the type or types of fuel to which the order under section 2 of this Act relates.
While the Minister has presented this Bill to the House, both in the Explanatory Memorandum and in his opening statement, as a precautionary measure to deal with a situation of short supply which might arise, nevertheless he is expanding the Bill so as to enable him to restrict or prohibit the importation of fuel. What are the types of fuel referred to in the Bill? Virtually everything one could visualise, including even firewood. There is one omission, and I am surprised it is there, having regard to the fact that the Minister referred to it in his opening statement. So far as I can see there is nothing in this Bill which would enable the Minister to deal at all with the question of natural gas. It may be that at present the sources of natural gas which might be available to us are either limited or untapped, but if a Bill of this sort is being introduced as part of our permanent legislation and as a precautionary measure it would seem to me that natural gas should be dealt with also, as well as the other types of fuel to which the Minister has referred.
I should like to ask the Minister, in connection with the Explanatory Memorandum that has been issued, what type of consultation has taken place in recent years with other European Governments. He has mentioned the question of the OECD approach to this but, referring to short-term scarcity, the Explanatory Memorandum goes on to say: "Situations of this kind nearly arose on occasions in recent years". I should like to know what those occasions were and how real danger was? What state of preparedness, if any, were the Government in in connection with them? Then the Explanatory Memorandum goes on to say: "The Government, in common with other European Governments, consider it desirable to be in a position to act speedily if the need should arise". I think that the Minister might give us some detailed information with regard to what consultations, or what advice, he or his Department have engaged in or received from other Governments.
I have referred to my view, in any event, that an opportunity should be given to Parliament to consider and, if necessary, discuss the orders that are contemplated in this Bill before those orders come into operation. Section 2 of the Bill is the section which enables the Government, if they are of opinion that exigencies of the common good necessitate the control by the Minister of supply and distribution of fuels, to make an order.
Section 2 then goes on to stipulate that any order made by the Government will have a life of only six months but it also provides that continuation orders may be made and that they may be made indefinitely under section 2. While the initial order has a life of only six months continuation orders, and any number of continuation orders as may be considered to be necessary, can be made, all extending the life of the original order. All that can be done without any consultation, good, bad or indifferent, with either Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann. The only provision in the Bill to enable that situation to be reviewed is the provision for the laying of the orders before the Houses ex-post facto. The thing has been done before Parliament gets an opportunity of expressing a view as to whether or not such an emergency situation as is envisaged by the Bill has arisen. Bad enough as that may be, I think the provisions in relation to the orders that may be made by the Minister for Transport and Power, once the initial Government order has been made, are extremely drastic indeed.
The Minister, towards the conclusion of his statement, referred to the fact that the order made by the Government would expire after a period of six months unless continued in force by order of the Government. Then he said "Any order made by the Minister for Transport and Power would expire with the enabling Government order unless previously revoked by him". I wonder is the Minister quite certain that that is the position because there does not seem to me to be anything in the Bill, as introduced, which automatically kills a Ministerial order once the initial Government order has been made. In fact it is solemnly provided in section 3 that any orders made by the Minister will have the force of law. The orders which the Minister may make can be extremely comprehensive and can have far-reaching and continuous effects.
Any contravention of these orders will, under this Bill, be an offence punishable with heavy penalties. I wonder is it being suggested that, once the emergency situation which is envisaged has lapsed, once the Government order has lapsed, any aftermath of a Ministerial order is going to lapse also? The orders which the Minister may make may provide for the regulation and control of the supply and distribution of the type or types of fuel to which the Government order relates. They also provide for the control, regulation, restriction or prohibition of the import or export of those types of fuels. Then it goes on, in subsection (2) of section 3 to provide that:
An order made by the Minister under this section may contain all such incidental or ancillary provisions, including the power to grant or issue such authorisations or licences and give such directions as shall appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient for giving full effect to any provision inserted in such order under the powers conferred on the Minister by this section.
Here we have a subsection which gives the Minister vast powers as to what will be included in his orders. He can give whatever direction he likes. There is no rein or check whatever. There is no guideline laid down as to what course the Minister is going to pursue. There is no general statement of Government policy as regards fuel. It is entirely discretionary to the Minister as to what type of order he may make or what type of directions he will give. There is no one, except the Minister, to judge to what extent the directions he may give are going to be regarded as necessary or expedient.
Then we go along to section 4 of the Bill to find out what happens if any of the Minister's orders are contravened. Subsection (1) states clearly that any contravention will be an offence. It says:
Any person who contravenes (whether by act or omission) or attempts so to contravene a provision in an order made by the Minister under this Act or in a direction, shall be guilty of an offence.
Therefore, you have an offence created if a person either by an act or omission contravenes either an order which the Minister makes or a direction which the Minister gives.
Subsection (2), I think, could be summarised as the subsection which is intended to deal with a person who abets a contravention of the order. Subsection (3) deals with the contravention involving a ship or aircraft and provides that the person in charge of the vessel or the person who has its management shall each be guilty of an offence.
Section 4 (4) deals with a body corporate and if an offence is committed by a body corporate it provides:
Where an offence under this section is committed by a body corporate and is proved to have been so committed with the consent or approval of, or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the body corporate, the director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to have committed the offence.
In subsection (5) we go on to the penalties. I want to call the attention of Members of the House to just what is being proposed under Section 4 in relation to the offences. There is no provision in this section which stimulates that a breach of the Ministerial order or direction shall only become an offence if it is done knowingly by the person who is to be charged with the offence. The person who contravenes a Ministerial order, or who acts contrary to a Ministerial direction, even though he does not know that the order has been made or the direction given, even if he does it quite innocently and accidentally, will, under the terms of section 4, be guilty of an offence and will be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 or to imprisonment for six months, or both.
I have referred to the subsection dealing with bodies corporate and which provides that, if an offence is committed by the body corporate and if that is consented to by the various officers, they also will be guilty. I have no particular objection to that but it does not stop there. It says that, if it has been committed with the consent or approval, or proved to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of the various officers, then those officers will find themselves in the position of being guilty of an offence.
It does not need a lawyer to know that degrees of neglect vary considerably and what may be held to be neglect in a criminal matter, in a matter involving a technical offence, may be of the very lightest nature. The mere fact that the secretary of a company omitted to open his post until the afternoon, instead of doing it as he normally would do in the morning, might be held to be neglect and in certain circumstances might make that unfortunate person guilty of an offence under this legislation which would render him liable to a fine of £100 or imprisonment for six months, or both. I would strongly urge the Minister, between this and the Committee Stage, to consider amending this section, or at least to make it quite clear that an offence will be committed only when a person knowingly contravenes any of the regulations made by the Minister or any directions given by him.
The Minister, I think, pointed out that electricity is one of the commodities being dealt with by this order. I want to ask the Minister to let the House know if this legislation providing for Government order and Ministerial order could be used, for example, if a situation arose again where there was an ESB strike, a strike of ESB workers. Would the position be that this legislation could then be relied on? Could the Minister, in pursuance of authority given to him under section 3, make an order providing for the regulation and control of the supply and distribution of electricity? Would the situation be that, without any discussion in the Dáil, without any discussion in this House, the Minister could simply, by regulation, bring into operation all the powers which were brought in under the Act dealing with the last electricity strike? Could he do that then without any Parliamentary discussion whatever? It seems to me that the door would be opened for the Minister to act in that way if section 3 goes through unaltered.
I appreciate the principle behind this Bill; I appreciate the need to be ready; I appreciate the desirability of protecting the public and acting for the common good if an emergency situation of shortage should arise. But I feel this Bill will require very close and very searching examination on Committee Stage. I hope that some of the matters I have mentioned now will be considered by the Minister between this and Committee Stage and that, on the Committee Stage discussions, if the Minister does not introduce amendments himself, I would hope that from this side of the House we would be able to discuss the sections in Committee and to put forward amendments which would try to achieve what the Minister has in mind and at the same time eliminate some of the objectionable features of the Bill as it stands.