I move amendment No. 4 :—
To insert a new sub-section " the regulation shall be laid upon the Table of the House."
There seems to be no reason why regulations made by the Minister under this Bill should not be laid on the Table for perusal by Deputies.
I agree. I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment, as it may have to go into a separate section. I will bring in an amendment on Report Stage.
What does sub-section 2 mean ?
That provision is inserted in many Acts. We are bound by certain rules and procedure in regard to these accounts which it is not thought advisable to have in this Bill.
What strikes me is that if the procedure under the Public Offices Fees Act, 1879, is deemed by the Executive to be archaic, it would seem to be the correct procedure to repeal that Act and to introduce some other Act. To repeal it in respect of this Act, without Deputies knowing what the provisions of the Public Offices Fees Act, 1879, are, seems to me to be taking a leap in the dark.
Except that as it does not apply here, it does not matter.
It may be for the safeguarding of the revenue it was there at all. Apparently the Government thought it should apply because they never repealed it.
The principal objection is that it states that the fees must be collected in money or in stamps. That would be a difficulty for bacon curers.
That is the idea of emphasising " money " here. A cheque will not be taken.
Not under the Act. It must be money or stamps.
The Revenue Commissioners will not take a cheque unless it is a certified cheque, and unless and until the bank honours the cheque. If you wish to clear goods at the Custom House you must deposit cash and they will deduct the duty payable on each consignment, or you can give a cheque which a bank is prepared to say they have ear-marked money for. It might happen that a cheque might be tendered by a man who was going into bankruptcy and a very large sum of money might be lost.
Of course, they get no receipts. The cheque is necessary in this business.
A certified cheque.
If the Public Offices Fees Act is not to apply, this Bill compels us to insist on money. Why not take a cheque ?
We could take a cheque by repealing the section.
Sub-section 1 says that all fees shall be collected in money. What does he mean ?
The Deputy knows the definition better than I do.
I do, but it is your baby not mine.
I regard it as extremely imprudent for the Revenue Commissioners or a Department of the Government dealing with the Public Offices Fees Act of 1879 casually to abrogate that in a sub-section of a Bill of this character. It is not a Money Bill and this is not the appropriate place to abrogate it by a regulation made by the Minister. I would be prepared to withdraw my objection to the section if the Minister would undertake to consult the Department of Finance between this and the Report Stage.
I could only consult with a view to repealing that Act altogether. In the case of every Bill we bring along, we appear to have to exempt ourselves in this respect.
Perhaps the Minister will undertake to see what is the view of the Minister for Finance with reference to this Act and let us know it on the Report Stage ?
All right.
I beg to move amendment No. 5 :—
Before sub-section (5) to insert a new sub-section as follows :—
Where an application is made under this section for registration in any register referred to in this section the Minister shall cause the premises to which that application relates to be inspected by an inspector.
There is under another section a provision to the effect that when an application for registration is made in respect of a bacon-curing establishment, the premises will be inspected before the Minister proceeds to grant registration. Section 11 deals with premises occupied by minor curers. I suggest that the preliminary course should be taken of inspecting the premises before setting the seal of the Department's approval upon them.
Registration is not refused on the grounds of unsuitable premises ; registration will be granted provided they produced a certain amount of bacon within the last two years and were in production for 45 weeks in 1934. The premises do not come into it and, even though the Minister might have the premises inspected, no matter how the inspector might view them, under other sections the Minister will have to grant registration.
Surely the powers in the case of the registration of premises are qualified by certain regulations requiring certain public health provisions to be observed ?
Yes, matters arising out of public health come into it.
I am suggesting that a situation should not arise in which the Minister for Agriculture will register a premises as suitable for the carrying on of the business of a minor curer under this Act when it might be condemned the following morning as a place unfit for the accommodation of food for human consumption.
That matter will arise under amendment 6. I was going to suggest there that there might be consultation with the Department of Local Government and Public Health.
Surely it is desirable that every premises on which the Minister is going to fix his seal of approval, even temporarily, should at least conform to the law and the Minister cannot satisfy himself of that unless and until he has had them inspected.
This registration is only necessary for two years, in which period the minor curers will be given an opportunity of making good. At the end of that period there will be an inspection of premises before they are allowed to become registered licensed curers.
I think an inspection such as is suggested now would pile unnecessary cost on those concerned. After all, the local authority is supposed to do its work and, if it does its duty, then the premises should be fit for the sale of animals for human consumption.
I have no doubt Deputies are aware that in rural Ireland there are many premises at present being used which are not adequately inspected and which are not fit premises for the production of pork or bacon. That is deplorable enough, but it will be far worse if that abuse can continue to exist if these premises are registered as the premises of minor curers.
We must take into consideration the amount of expense involved in the carrying out of inspections. I suggest that it is really a matter for the Department of Public Health to supervise that portion of the business. I think it is fair for the Minister to assume that the Public Health Acts are being carried out, and he would not be justified in assuming that if this were a permanency, but it is only in its transition stage for a period of two years. Anyway, if they did not poison any people within the last year they will not poison a lot during the next two years.
There are many of these minor curers who may subsequently qualify for inclusion on the register of small curers. Their eligibility in that respect will largely depend on how suitable are their premises. In addition to serving the cause of public health by inspecting the premises, the cause of the minor curers themselves might be served by an inspection, because the inspector would be able to point out to them what reforms they might carry out if they ambitioned to be included on the register of small curers.
Is it your suggestion that the proposed improvements in existing premises would be carried out at the end of two years or would you apply it immediately ?
All the amendment calls for is that now that the minor curers are being registered, the Minister should invite the inspectors to warn the minor curers that certain reforms will have to be carried out if, at the end of two years, they desire to become registered small curers.
Would it not meet the situation if they were to write to the local authority for a certificate of suitability for killing meat in those premises ? Why not throw the responsibility on the local authority ?
Some of them might not apply.
Then you have your colleague the Minister for Local Government and Public Health.
Some local authorities might not take steps to carry out inspections.
But the Department of Public Health should make them.
The object of the amendment is to safeguard the interests of small curers, and that may be necessary. If the premises are not inspected some curers may go along in a slipshod way, whereas if there was an inspection and if suggestions were offered for carrying out improvements, there might be a desirable change in conditions.
Will not the same regulations apply under this Bill as under the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Act ?
The Fresh Meat Act—yes.
Ought not that be good enough ?
If Deputy Dillon thinks that a minor curer ought to get some advice as to how he should make his premises right, that can be got. From time to time people ask for advice as to whether they ought to reconstruct their premises. But we do not want to be bound to do that. If a minor curer, for his own information, would like to know what alterations would be necessary to allow him to qualify at the end of two years, I think he will have no difficulty in getting it.
I think it would be wrong for the Minister to give his sanction for the carrying on of business in premises that might subsequently prove to be a menace to the public health. I propose to press my amendment.
Will no inspection take place under this measure as it stands now ?
No.
Not for minor curers—there will be for licensed premises, of course.
It should not be the function of the Department to encourage minor curers or to suggest to them that they should do so-and-so. The minor curer should have some initiative and foresight.
And if he has not, he should get out of business altogether.
I agree with that. He should say to himself : " I will become a small curer within two years if I can, " and he should make it his business to see if his premises are suitable. To hold the spoon up to his mouth, so to speak, is not a thing with which I could agree.
The Deputy appears to forget that under other enactments such precautions were taken. For instance, under the Eggs Act very elaborate instructions were forthcoming from inspectors as to the exact requirements of the Department in regard to equipment.
If this amendment would have the effect of encouraging minor curers to develop and qualify within a certain period, I would be in favour of it.
How many minor curers do you anticipate ?
About 30.
Does the Minister seriously say that there are only 30 persons in the State producing bacon at a rate less than 44 pigs per week ? I put the number at 300 to 500.
And working 45 weeks in the year. There would not be more than 30 registered.
